Preamble

The House met at half—past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Wednesday 25 October.

ALLIANCE & LEICESTER GROUP TREASURY PLC (TRANSFER) BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Wednesday 25 October.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Euro

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on Government policy relating to the right of Scottish banks to print currency notes after the proposed introduction of the euro. [130567]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): It is with some regret, Madam Speaker, that I rise to take part in what will be your final time in the Chair for Scottish questions. May I take this opportunity, on behalf of the people of Scotland, Members of Parliament from Scotland, and, I am sure, the whole House to thank you for the way in which you have presided over our deliberations for a considerable time? I wish you all the best for the future.
Turning to the question, I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a wide range of issues. The Government are well aware of the importance of the issue of Scottish Bank notes in the event of United Kingdom membership of economic and monetary union and it remains one of the issues for negotiations if the UK were to join EMU.

Mrs. Laing: I thank the Secretary of State for that full and vague answer. After 300 years of United Kingdom Union in which the Scottish pound has been preserved, does he not find it sad that, because of the Government's attitude to our relationship with the European Union, there is a great risk that the Scottish pound will be abolished? Is he not at all concerned about the risks to the economy of the whole United Kingdom that a European single currency joined by the United Kingdom would have? Has

he not listened to what Sir Eddie George said today about the great risks that the single currency would bring to the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, or are we to assume that Sir Eddie George is not to be listened to in Scotland because he is the Governor of the Bank of England?

Dr. Reid: My congratulations go to the hon. Lady and the author of that contribution. As I have explained to her already, and as the Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning in the Scottish Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), has already made plain in his correspondence with the Committee of Scottish Clearing Bankers, the Government—and, incidentally, the Bank of England—agree that the position has not changed recently. No final decision has been taken. We are well aware of the importance of the facility in Scotland to produce pound notes and we will bear that in mind if and when it comes to joining the euro.
Our position is balanced, and not vague as the hon. Lady describes it. It is predicated on the best interests of this country, politically and economically. It is certainly distinguished in its pragmatism from the positions of principle held by the three opposition parties. The Liberal Democrats would join the euro tomorrow, irrespective of the consequences. The Scottish National party takes three positions of principle that change with time, but I understand that the latest incarnation is that it would join at the earliest possible date, irrespective of the consequences. The Conservative party holds the qualified principle—the only one philosophically known to man—that this is matter of absolute principle until the end of the next Parliament, when it ceases to be a principle. All those are absurd positions. We will not be dogmatic; we will act, as a Government, in the best interests of the people of this country.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the single currency arrangement made between Scotland and England in 1707 has been extremely beneficial to all concerned and that none of my constituents are campaigning for a return to groats and baubees? Does he further agree that entry to a shared European currency on the right terms would be just as beneficial to all the citizens of the United Kingdom?

Dr. Reid: I have to give a qualified answer because my experience does not go back as far as 1707. For as long as I have been around I have thought that we have benefited greatly from that arrangement, and it would be a non-progressive step to go back to groats and baubees. However, I notice that the Conservative party, which aspires to government, wants us to go back to threepenny bits and sixpences and no doubt it will be poles, perches and baubees before we get much further into the debate.
On the euro, we have made it absolutely plain that there is a triple lock. If and when we decide that the criteria have been met, a decision will not only have to be agreed by the Cabinet and the House, but will be put to the people of this country. A combination of the pragmatic approach as to what is in the best interests of this country and a


democratic approach, which will put the issue before the people, provides the best of both worlds. That is in contrast to the positions offered by the opposition parties.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that it is quite difficult to be dogmatic about a policy of dither and delay? The Government need to recognise that if Britain is to be a member of the European single currency, we must take practical steps now to achieve convergence and make the possibility of winning a referendum achievable. What is the Secretary of State doing to achieve that?

Dr. Reid: I have never had any difficulty in watching Liberal Democrats take a dogmatic approach to dither and delay. For many years, they have run on the slogan "What do we want? Gradual change. When do we want it? In due course". There is no difficulty in finding that to be so on the hon. Gentleman's part.
Our position is perfectly sensible and pragmatic. We believe that it is in the interests of this country that there is a general decision to join a successful single currency, but that that should take place in the right conditions and at the right time, which is why we have set out criteria. We believe that the decision should command the support of the Cabinet and Parliament, as well as the country, which is why we promised a referendum. Most people would agree with that common—sense and pragmatic approach, rather than the dogmatic position of Opposition parties.

Fuel Duties (Rural Areas)

Mr. David Stewart: What recent representations he has received on the impact of taxation on petrol on transport in Scottish rural areas. [130568]

Miss Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the impact of vehicle fuel duties on the rural economy in Scotland. [130573]

The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I am in regular contact with all sections of the community in rural Scotland on a broad range of issues, including taxation on fuel.

Mr. Stewart: The Minister will be aware of the price of fuel in the highlands and islands which, at £ 4 a gallon, is an impediment to business and tourism. However, does he welcome the decision of Gleaner Oils to introduce LPG—liquefied petroleum gas—which costs half as much as ordinary fuel, into more than 20 filling stations in the highlands and islands over the next year? Does the Minister share my enthusiasm about LPG, and recognise that the next step involves, first, changing the conversion scheme to include older cars and, secondly, encouraging car manufacturers to build more dual-fuel vehicles? We will then have a low-emission, low-cost fuel that is available to a new generation of rural motorists.

Mr. Wilson: I am very enthusiastic about LPG, which carries with it the best hope of not just tinkering with the present situation but transforming it. It offers the glittering prize of changing the highlands and islands from the highest-cost road fuel area in the United Kingdom into

the lowest-cost area. We can achieve that if we expand the availability of LPG. I am having very promising discussions about a major expansion of LPG availability in the highlands and islands, which would put the area into the forefront of access to the fuel in the UK. I am very much in line with my hon. Friend on that.

Miss McIntosh: Is the Minister aware that Scotland is still a major oil producer and has the second cheapest pre-tax oil prices in the European Union? However, post-tax, those prices are 23 per cent. higher than the EU average. Is the Minister also aware that last year the Highlands regional council did a study that showed that tanking up in the highlands and islands was £4.30 more expensive than in the rest of Scotland? Is it the Government's policy to price the car off the road in rural parts of Scotland?

Mr. Wilson: No, that is not our policy. As always in our debates, the hon. Lady's question suffers from her selective use of facts and statistics. She is right about the taxation burden on petrol, although her remarks are a bit rich coming from an Opposition Member, as it was the Tories, of course, who introduced the fuel duty escalator.
The hon. Lady did not mention other taxes on motorists which transform the picture across Europe, if one takes into account the whole burden of motoring taxation, not just petrol taxation. Is the hon. Lady proposing that there should be a purchase tax of £4, 000 a car, as in Norway, or that road tax should be £720, as in the Netherlands? The whole picture has to be looked at and, in the highlands and islands, we are working on reducing differentials, supporting rural filling stations, supporting the initiative on bulk buying in remote communities and, of course, working on the LPG initiative. That is all constructive stuff which will bring benefit to the highlands.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Will my hon. Friend take care when others are trying to persuade him of the need for conversion to liquefied petroleum gas? We must first introduce proper regulation to keep the cowboys out of the conversion market. I have a constituent from Netherburn near Larkhall whose child was nearly gassed in the back of his car, but he cannot get compensation because there is not sufficient regulation to protect car drivers who choose to convert to LPG.

Mr. Wilson: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I am sure he will pursue with his usual vigour. It does not detract from the overall point that LPG offers a major opportunity to transform motoring costs, and I urge people in the highlands and islands and other areas with LPG availability, particularly those who are buying a new car, seriously to consider purchasing a dual-fuel car.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Madam Speaker, may I first associate Conservative Members with the remarks made by the Secretary of State at the beginning of Question Time in respect of your presiding over our turbulence?
In reply to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), the Minister said that other factors should be considered in relation to the cost of transport in the highlands. Yet he knows that we have the highest heavy goods vehicle licence fees in


Europe, on top of the fuel taxes and the fuel escalator that his Government have raised. The situation is so bad that the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) has had to introduce, through the Highland transport authority, an initiative for bulk buying petrol to try to reduce its price by 10p in the pound, although that is only a small component of the tax that the Government take. When will the Government wake up to the extent to which their taxation is bleeding the economy of rural areas in Scotland white?

Mr. Wilson: We enter the realms of the bizarre when a Tory spokesman assails us on the cost of petrol. The Tories, doubtless for what they saw as good reasons, introduced the fuel duty escalator; the Labour Government got rid of it. As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, of the last 19p increase in the cost of petrol 17p per litre has come from the rise in the world price of oil, which in other ways is beneficial to the UK economy. Let us have some honesty on all points in the debate. We have listed our initiatives, and I am happy to associate myself with the creative thinking of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) on bulk buying—that is what a good MP does, instead of bleating about things and trying to make political capital out of them.

Mr. Grieve: The Minister cannot get away with it. The Government have been indulging in the most extraordinary creative thinking to get themselves off the hook. First, they told us that the fuel duty escalator was all about changing our driving habits, which is a useless policy to present to the population of the highlands and islands. Recently, the Prime Minister has been telling us that the taxes are vital to pay for public services, but we in the House know the reality. In the Chancellor's constituency of Dunfermline, East—which is not exactly a hotbed of Conservatives or conservatism—43 per cent. of those polled consider that taxation has risen under this Government, and only 12 per cent. feel that they have received any benefit in the way of services for the price that they have had to pay.

Mr. Wilson: I can only describe that as unconvincing bluster. Let us establish the facts: the Tories introduced the fuel duty escalator; Labour has abolished it. That is an inescapable fact. Any hon. Member who says that we should cut fuel duty has to say where the money to do so will come from. Let us not forget that every one of the parties represented in the Chamber supported the fuel duty escalator in one way or another: the Tories introduced it, the Liberal Democrats wanted to increase it, and the nationalists based their budget projections on it. Where is the argument?

Rail Infrastructure

Mr. Russell Brown: What action the Government have taken to promote investment in railway infrastructure in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [130569]

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): The Government are promoting investment in railway infrastructure through their 10—year transport plan. That

includes £60 billion for a bigger, better, safer railway—the biggest investment in railways for generations, which will undoubtedly benefit Scotland.

Mr. Brown: I thank the Secretary of State for his reply and I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for last week's announcement of additional funding through the comprehensive spending review. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that some of that investment is channelled towards moving more freight on to railways, with particular emphasis on timber freight, which is an issue in my constituency?

Dr. Reid: Yes, I will certainly continue to do that. It is noticeable that, under this Government, there has been the first increase in freight transport on rail for generations. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that, since May 1997 when the Government were elected, nine freight facility grants have been awarded in Scotland. Those total £16.5 million and will remove 8.7 million lorry miles per annum from roads in Scotland. A further £1 million has been made available for 2000–01. So, once again, investment in our railways, and incentives to move from road to rail have been encouraged under this Government.
All those moneys would of course be cut by the Conservative party, which, having abandoned every other guarantee, gives only one guarantee to the people of Scotland: if a Tory Government were elected, one third of all expenditure introduced in the Budget as additional for Scottish services would be removed.

Sir Robert Smith: May I associate those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches with the Secretary of State's good wishes on the occasion of the last Scottish questions under your Chair, Madam Speaker? [HON. MEMBERS: "Under your Chair?"] I am waiting for a little peace and quiet on the Conservative Benches.
In considering the railway investment that the Secretary of State has announced, will he determine which structural and financial problems remain barriers to imaginative, innovative and detailed schemes such as the Waverley route in the borders and plans for a cross—rail link to Aberdeen, which will provide alternative transport that people need if they are to avoid using their cars?

Dr. Reid: I can certainly look at those, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, post devolution, we are involved in a partnership. All train journeys starting and ending in Scotland—not inter-city services—have become the responsibility of the Scottish Executive. I shall ensure that his point is brought to the attention of the Minister for Transport and the Environment in Scotland, Ms Boyack.

Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: Is it not the case that freight facility grants were never used until the Labour Government were elected in 1997? I welcome the grants that have been awarded, including the one to Leith docks in my constituency. Does the Secretary of State welcome the new, ambitious targets for furthering freight facility grants and the unprecedented


boost to rail infrastructure that was announced last week, which will be good for the economy, good for the environment and good for people throughout Scotland?

Dr. Reid: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The previous Conservative Government objected on two principled grounds to doing what we are doing. First, they did not believe in planning of any sort. They believed that words such as "planning and strategy", "common sense" and "forward looking" were associated with opposition to the free market, which was their only criterion. Secondly, they were very much opposed to investing money in any public services, not just rail. That meant decline for many years in freight transport and a commensurate increase in transport on the roads, with all its disadvantages. So, I agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that we do not ever have another Government who cut public services as the Conservatives did in the past and have promised to do in future.

Mr. Owen Paterson: It is nice to hear the Secretary of State praising the privatised rail industry. What level of profit does he consider necessary to ensure the continued flow of private investment into the infrastructure of Scotland's railways?

Dr. Reid: It is not for me to decide the level of profit. The level that will activate future investment will be the one that attracts money to the industry. Despite advances under the privatised industry in the level of investment, the rise in the number of passengers and some of its longer-term plans now that we have brought it together, there have been serious disadvantages, too. Punctuality has gone to pot, reliability is down and the fragmentation of the network meant that, until we introduced the Strategic Rail Authority, there was no overall view. So, the matter is not as simple as having to choose between the unfettered free market and a Soviet command system, which was the line pursued by the previous Government. A sensible balance between the public and private sectors is what this Government stand for.

Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: Safety on board trains is especially important during the holiday period. Will my right hon. Friend take up, with inter-city train operators in particular, issues of overcrowding and overselling of tickets, resulting in luggage and passengers in train corridors, which is extremely dangerous? Will he raise those issues with the Deputy Prime Minister and investigate the possibility of introducing legislation?

Dr. Reid: I shall certainly give my attention to my hon. Friend's remarks. There is no doubt that there has been a vast increase in the number of passengers travelling by train. For punctuality and reliability, ScotRail normally comes joint first with, or a close second to, Island Line on the Isle of Wight. As that line is only six miles long, a train need only come out of the shunting shed to be almost guaranteed to be on time at the end of its journey. On the question of investment, the plan outlined by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister provides about £29 billion of Government funding, which will result in upgrading of the east coast main line, modernisation of the west coast main line, and £7 billion for the rail modernisation fund. We want the

Conservatives to be sufficiently honest to tell us which programme they would cut if they were elected to office at the next general election.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADVOCATE-GENERAL

The Advocate-General was asked—

Devolution Issue

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) of 27 June 2000, Official Report, column 482W, if she will list the cases which have caused her to intervene on the grounds that they might have ramifications for the whole United Kingdom. [130592]

The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): To date I have intervened in 14 cases. I shall arrange for a list to be placed in the Library of the House.

Dr. Godman: Am I right in thinking think that devolved and reserved matters are not always mutually exclusive? May I point out that a recent motion on the Order Paper of the Scottish Parliament called for Her Majesty's Government and the Scottish Executive to take steps to alleviate the poverty of asylum seekers and refugees? What advice has my hon. and learned Friend given on legal measures in that respect, and would such measures be taken by Her Majesty's Government, or by the Scottish Executive, or by a mixture of the two?

The Advocate-General: As my hon. Friend knows, I cannot disclose the exact nature of any advice that I have given. However, in general terms, I assure him that, where appropriate, I give advice to United Kingdom Departments and Ministers. The Scottish Parliament has its own, separate legal representation.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Pleasant as it is to see the hon. and learned Lady at the Dispatch Box, she knows what she receives by way of her ministerial salary to discharge her functions, yet she informs us that she has made only 14 interventions in the more than 12 months since she took office. In view of the Lord Chancellor's comments about fat-cat lawyers, referring to the self-employed profession, does the hon. and learned Lady think that the Government and the taxpayer are getting value for money from her discharge of her full-time post?

The Advocate-General: The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that I have not only intervened in 14 cases: I have scrutinised about 750 cases and several Bills of the Scottish Parliament, and that work will increase as the Scottish Parliament produces more Bills for scrutiny. I have also formulated a number of opinions; as the hon. Gentleman, who is legally qualified, well knows, it is not and will not be the Advocate-General's practice to reveal those opinions. However, I assure him that I am not twiddling my thumbs.

Human Rights Convention

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: What discussions she has had with the First Minister and the Home Office regarding the workings of the European convention on human rights. [130593]

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: What discussions she has had with the First Minister and the Home Office regarding the workings of the European convention on human rights. [130594]

The Advocate-General: I have regular discussions with colleagues in the Home Office and with Scottish Executive Ministers on various matters, including those relating to the European convention on human rights.

Mr. Morgan: The Scottish Parliament has more reason than most to know about the costs and legislative implications of the ECHR. What assessment has the hon. and learned Lady made of the additional costs that will fall on Scotland from 3 October?

The Advocate-General: It is not for me to cost those matters, but I can give the hon. Gentleman the following comfort. The assessment carried out reveals that most cases will arise from cases currently before the courts, rather than from individual new cases. However, substantial training has been undertaken on both sides of the border and that has, in itself, resulted in additional costs. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that overall it is important that the European convention on human rights be brought into effect and that the costs are commensurate with that.

Ms Cunningham: I have listened with interest to the Advocate-General's response. Welcome though the incorporation of the human rights convention is, she must accept that it has been costly already in Scotland. I understand that the Home Office has recently been given a grant of £60 million over three years to deal with what happens after 3 October. Scotland has had money starting from last year, but will the Minister make representations to the Government to ensure that finance is reconsidered, especially for Scotland, after 3 October, when even more challenges are likely to be forthcoming?

The Advocate-General: I am sure that the hon. Lady would understand, if she read the Scotland Act 1998, that my function is not that of the Secretary of State. I am the legal officer, and my job is legal. Any submissions about financial costs, if they are to be made, are to be made by the Secretary of State.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

Stipendiary Magistrates

Mr. David Taylor: What estimate she has made of the proportion of

(a) summary-only and (b) either-way cases heard by stipendiary magistrates in each of the last three years; and if she will make a statement. [130596]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): Unfortunately, these figures are not collected centrally. However, results from an ad hoc survey of magistrates courts committees throughout the country suggest that about 10 per cent. of either-way cases and slightly less than 10 per cent. of summary cases were heard by stipendiary magistrates in each of the past three years.
My right honourable and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has said on numerous occasions that the future of the lay magistracy is secure. The Government are committed to the principle of the lay magistracy continuing to play a significant part in our system of justice.

Mr. Taylor: I thank the Minister for those figures. As a life member of the Magistrates Association, I welcome the reassurance about the future of lay benches. However, does she acknowledge the fears of many of my 30, 000 magisterial colleagues that there exists a civil service agenda secreted in a Selborne house cellar that envisages a European model of a fully professional judiciary? Is there not a real risk, following the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No.2) Bill, that there will be many more one—person judgments by stipendiary magistrates, which could lead too often to the charge of legal arbitrariness and state authoritarianism?

Jane Kennedy: I can reassure my hon. Friend that there are no such sinister cellars in Selborne house. On the contrary, there is an excellent staff restaurant at that level, which I would invite him to visit.
In all seriousness, I can reassure my hon. Friend that there is nothing in the mode of trial Bill that suggests or requires a more extensive use of stipendiary magistrates. It is important to understand their role. They hear cases that are expected to continue for more than one day. That helps the court over the difficulty of constituting a bench of three lay members who are able to sit for two, three or more consecutive days. Stipendiary magistrates give support to lay benches.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: I do not wish to intrude on the private grief caused by the attack of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on the sinister cellars in Selborne house, but will there be a proper survey following this Question Time into the work that is done by stipendiary magistrates? Will the hon. Lady confirm that, despite the support that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have for the lay magistracy, she recognises that stipendiary magistrates have an important part to play? Might the Government change their mind about the role of stipendiaries under the Football (Disorder) Bill, which is being considered in another place? As she knows, the Opposition certainly wish stipendiaries to have a greater role in the context of that legislation.

Jane Kennedy: I sought to reassure the House that there were no such sinister cellars. I clearly have not achieved my objective. A joint Lord Chancellor's Department and Home Office research project is being


undertaken to assess whether the current balance between the use of lay magistrates and stipendiaries is correct, and whether each set of magistrates is deployed in the most effective way. A report on that is due in September. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the review of the criminal courts that is being conducted by Lord Justice Auld. We await his conclusions with interest.

McKenzie Friends

Mr. David Ruffley: What representations he has received regarding the numbers of McKenzie friends attending legal proceedings (a) in court and (b) in chambers. [130598]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): Since my previous reply on 25 January this year to the hon. Gentleman, I have not received any representations about McKenzie friends.

Mr. Ruffley: Will the Minister explain to the House how it can possibly be in the interests of British justice for litigants in person to be increasingly deprived of McKenzie friends in court proceedings?

Mr. Lock: I do not accept the premise of the question. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that McKenzie friends are increasingly being denied access to courts. Judges have developed common law rules so that litigants in person are permitted a McKenzie friend in proceedings in open court and in most proceedings in chambers, unless the court is satisfied that justice and fairness do not require that.
I trust that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the nature of private proceedings in chambers, where confidential matters are frequently disclosed, means that anyone who is in those chambers and who seeks to play a professional part must be under a regulated system. McKenzie friends are entirely outside that. That is why the judges, in exercising their discretion to control what happens in their courts, have perfectly properly put that caveat on the role of McKenzie friends.

Public Trust Office

Mr. Tony Colman: If she will make a statement on the review of the Public Trust Office. [130599]

Mr. Harry Barnes: If she will make a statement on the operation of the Public Trust Office. [130607]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The Lord Chancellor announced his plans for the future operation of the Public Trust Office on 11 April 2000. We are consulting all interested parties on the programme of reform set out in "Making Changes: the Future of the Public Trust Office". A number of steps have already been taken to improve the current performance of the Public Trust Office. A new

customer services division has been created, a new senior management team has been put in place, and we anticipate a much-improved service to clients.

Mr. Colman: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for the work that she has done over the past six months in particular, since I have been involved, to bring together the unions, the management, the clients, the patients and the receivers to deliver a much better service at no increased cost to the clients or the receivers. Will she join me in congratulating Nick Smedley and the management for the open days that they are holding for receivers? I attended one today and saw that many receivers strongly support the changes. Will my hon. Friend ensure that in the distribution of assets below £10, 000, those are not under any circumstances handed over to nursing or care home managers? Concern has been expressed to me that "granny farming" could result if care home managers were in receipt of those moneys.

Jane Kennedy: I am grateful for the interest that my hon. Friend takes in the work of the Public Trust Office. He raises an important point. Each case is reviewed individually by a senior case worker in the Public Trust Office, who will check that, among other things, all accounts are accurate and up to date, and that the case file and visitors' reports, if there are any, demonstrate that the receiver is taking an active interest in the patient's welfare, and that no concerns have been raised by third parties—for example, the nursing home or social services.
We are notifying the client, the receiver and family members of our intention to transfer the assets in advance. Where there is a family dispute or a risk of fraudulent activity, the capital will not be distributed. I cannot give my hon. Friend an absolute guarantee that we will not distribute the capital to nursing homes—clearly, that would be done on a case-by-case basis—but it is worth mentioning that that is proving extremely popular with receivers dealing with the Public Trust Office, not because they intend to misappropriate the funds, but because they are often caring for loved ones and do not like the interference of the state in their work.

Mr. Barnes: I am pleased to hear of the improvements that are taking place; they certainly seem to be needed. I am pursuing a case on behalf of a constituent, the mother of a disabled boy, who is gravely dissatisfied with the investment programme undertaken by the trust in connection with his settlement. Has not the Public Trust Office been a highly incompetent organisation up till now? That is illustrated by the fact that it only recently obtained computers. I know that computers are not the answer to all the problems in the universe, but assistance in that regard and the other improvements that have been mentioned may help to ensure that the situation that I described does not occur again.

Jane Kennedy: I am aware of my hon. Friend's constituent's case. The Public Trust Office needs to be overhauled to deliver a better service to clients, but a great deal of good work has been done in the past and we do not want to introduce change for change's sake. At each stage we are consulting the users—the receivers and, in many cases, clients—to ensure that the service that we deliver is appropriate to the needs of the clients whom we seek to serve.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that in July 1999 the Public Accounts Committee concluded that the Public Trust Office was failing properly to protect the financial interests of people suffering from mental incapacity, and, furthermore, in the light of the reform proposals to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred, what improvement has she so far detected in the training of staff?

Jane Kennedy: At the outset we had to suspend some of the training programmes because of the enormous pressure that we were placing on the staff. It is recognised that the Public Trust Office is in the midst of a major and complex programme of change, so I was happy to be able to announce to the staff some two months ago that we were reinstating and improving the training programme. As I think that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, the total programme of change cannot be successfully implemented without the requisite skills, which often are not available in the civil service, so, on occasions, we shall seek the support of external consultants to take the work forward.
I associate myself with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) in commending the work of Nick Smedley, the director of the programme of change in the Public Trust Office.

Ms Joan Walley: I welcome the review, but I draw my hon. Friend's attention to concerns which were brought to my attention at my surgery on Saturday about annual administrative costs for those in the lowest income band. Relatives of pensioners whose total income is used to pay for private and residential homes simply do not have the annual £180 minimum administrative charge. Will my hon. Friend consider that issue closely?

Jane Kennedy: Nursing home fees are a matter for the Department of Health, but I am conscious of the concerns expressed about the imposition of fees. The Treasury has agreed to changes to the mental health fee system and we plan to introduce new fees in the autumn which should meet some of my hon. Friend's concerns.

Rural Magistrates Courts

Mr. Owen Paterson: If she will make a statement on future prospects for rural magistrates courts. [130601]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The hon. Gentleman asked similar questions on 9 November 1999, and this year, on 25 January, 18 April and 27 June. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that he is still waiting for an answer, but, as I said on each occasion, the Government's policy is that magistrates courts are best managed locally by magistrates courts committees under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997. Decisions concerning the future of magistrates courts in an MCC area, whether rural or urban, are for the committee to determine, but I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman's attendance at our Question Time.

Mr. Paterson: When I meet the chairman of Shropshire's magistrates courts on Thursday, may I give

him a clear reassurance from the Minister that, should Shropshire's magistrates desire to keep all their magistrates courts, the Government will not push them into a policy of centralisation, as has happened in Hereford, where there is now only one court?

Jane Kennedy: As I have just said, the organisation of the courts in Shropshire will be for the local magistrates courts committee, so when the hon. Gentleman meets the chairman he might like to point out just how committed the Government are to modernising the service provided by magistrates courts committees. The public have a right to expect well-equipped and secure court rooms. The hon. Gentleman might also like to tell the chairman that we are spending £16 million this year on magistrates courts improvements. He might also like to suggest how he would arrive at the programme of cuts that the Conservative party would introduce if it were ever returned to power.

Mr. John Burnett: The closure of rural magistrates courts leads to the denial of justice for many people. Furthermore, it undermines the morale of the lay magistracy. For how long will the Government persist in their policy of imposing 3 per cent. per annum cuts on magistrates courts committees throughout the country?

Jane Kennedy: The comprehensive spending review renewed the requirement for efficiency gains for a further three-year period. I reject the proposition that there are cuts of 3 per cent. year on year. That is not the case. If we consider courthouse closures in recent years, most magistrates courts that have closed so far are those that committees no longer felt able to justify because they lacked the necessary facilities. It is absolutely essential to provide courts that are modern and fit for their purpose.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The slight hazard with that is that, if membership of a magistrates courts committee is not balanced in relation to a specific rural area, there will be some inclination to believe that the decision has not been totally independent and is therefore not unavoidable. I presume that my hon. Friend will examine the composition of magistrates courts committees.

Jane Kennedy: I shall certainly do that, as I have done on previous occasions when my hon. Friend has raised the matter. I undertake to do it again.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

The President of the Council was asked—

Media Access

Helen Jackson: What further proposals she will bring forward to improve access to Parliament for the media. [130611]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Modernisation Committee and the Administration Committee have worked together to remove restrictions on


the use of tape recorders in the Gallery, end the ban on interviews in Members' offices and ease the restrictions on photography. In addition, there are now facilities close to the Chamber for interviews with hon. Members, as well as several more minor changes.

Helen Jackson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House is best served not by the frothy, gossipy media reporting that often occurs, but by proper coverage of our serious debates not only in the Chamber but in Committee and in Westminster Hall? In the next Session, will she consider the way in which we can enhance facilities close to Westminster Hall and on the Committee Corridors?

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that hon. Members from all parties sometimes resent the fact that the more serious—and in many ways more interesting—part of our work gets the least coverage. I certainly undertake further to consider what we can do to extend coverage of, for example, Committees and Westminster Hall. I know that the Modernisation Committee wishes to do that.
I hope that my hon. Friend knows that we are reviewing the operations in Westminster Hall and that, as part of that review, we have received information from the BBC regional unit about how useful it finds those debates and the great use that it makes of them on regional television.

Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the President of the Council confirm that the prospects for further enhancing facilities for the media will be realised when Portcullis House is occupied later this year? Does the right hon. Lady find it as astonishing as Members of other Parliaments do that it will be possible for each Member of Parliament to have his or her own private office only when Portcullis House is occupied?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right. I am grateful to him for drawing attention to the media facilities that will be available in Portcullis House. He is also right to draw attention to the fact that the new building will make it possible for every hon. Member to have an office for the first time. Many people find it astonishing that that has not been the case hitherto. It is a pity that the provision of accommodation does not feature more in the coverage of Portcullis House.

The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire,
representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Visitor Facilities

Angela Smith: What matters relating to facilities for visitors were discussed at the Commission's last meeting. [130613]

Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): A decision to include plans for a visitors centre was taken by the Commission during recent consideration of the next three-year rolling programme of expenditure.

Angela Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. It is one of the most welcome answers that I have

received as a Member of Parliament. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on personally pursuing the matter. Flushed with success on the issue, there is another that I wish to raise with him. I shall do that later in the year.

Mr. Kirkwood: Let me return the compliment. The hon. Lady's intelligent and persistent use of oral and written questions on the subject—[Interruption] Hon. Members may groan, but the hon. Lady's questioning helped to persuade the Commission of the urgent need for visitor facilities to be established in this place as soon as possible.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Would the hon. Gentleman consider increasing dining facilities for hon. Members so that they could invite more than three guests, especially to Portcullis House? Could the three-guest limit for each Member of Parliament be increased?

Mr. Kirkwood: That is an absolutely fair point. The Catering Committee will be able to reconsider the rules because more dining facilities will be available to hon. Member when Portcullis House is commissioned, which we hope will happen in the autumn. Hon. Members may be able to take more guests into the accommodation provided by the Catering Committee, but, strictly speaking, that is a matter for the Committee.

Madam Speaker: It is.

The President of the Council was asked—

Written Answers

Mr. Harry Barnes: If she will make it her policy to allow the tabling and publication of early-day motions and the publication of written answers during parliamentary Adjournments. [130614]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): No. This matter has been raised frequently—not least by my hon. Friend—but it has considerable implications on time and resources.

Mr. Barnes: That is a very disappointing reply. I hope to table an early-day motion today in an attempt to assist Moorside Mining at Eckington, which is in my constituency, to survive into the future. I would not be able to do that if something similar happened next week or at any time in the next three months. Given that we shall be away for three months, I shall not have the opportunity to table parliamentary questions that will receive an answer. That seems to me to be a minimum requirement in a period when we are Members without Parliament, not Members of Parliament.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend asks about early-day motions as well as written answers. Of course I understand the concern that he expresses, but it is not reasonable, for example, to expect the staff of the House to be available for 52 weeks a year, and Madam Speaker would have a role in adjudicating whether the questions could be accepted. The matter has been considered


repeatedly over the years, but it has further implications than are sometimes realised on the use of resources and on the pressure on Members of all kinds.

Mr. Tim Loughton: Is the Leader of the House aware that the fashion for Ministers to issue holding answers is increasing and that even simple factual questions take many weeks to answer? I am still waiting for an answer from the Health Secretary to a simple question about hospital waiting times that goes back to 17 March. If that answer does not appear before the end of this week and the question is then answered at the end of October, I will have awaited more than five months for the answer to a simple question. Could not those questions that have been outstanding for a long time be answered during the recess?

Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but the experience of the Scottish Parliament, which began to take questions in the recess, was that far more holding answers, even than the norm, were generated for reasons that I suppose are fairly obvious. Certainly, I share his view that it is disappointing if factual questions cannot be answered reasonably speedily, but long experience of tabling such questions suggests to me that sometimes what may seem a simple question to the Member tabling it requires a lot of work and causes complication in the Department. However, I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Liaison Committee Report

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: What representations she has received on the Government's response to the Liaison Committee's report, "Shifting the Balance". [130616]

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I have received no representations as such from any hon. Member, although I am aware that in the House and outside a number have expressed views on it.

Mr. Mackinlay: Has my right hon. Friend heard the cruel and callous rumour, which is full of calumny, that the Government might try to kick into touch any consideration in Parliament of the Liaison Committee's report "Shifting the Balance"? Can she give the House an assurance that, despite the fact that there are varying views on the report's contents and recommendations, the Government intend to bring the matter to a head and allow hon. Members a free vote, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister promised last week, on "Shifting the Balance" in the not-too-distant future and certainly in time for the implementation of any decision flowing from that debate to be triggered if we are returned after the general election?

Mrs. Beckett: I anticipate that there is likely to be a debate on the matter, perhaps in the overspill. Of course it is a House matter, so the Government will certainly allow a free vote, although it is far from clear to me that Conservatives Members will be allowed a free vote, but I very much hope that they will be. I urge hon. Members

to study the report with great care because it has profound implications for the rights and responsibilities of individual Members, which I fear many seem to be overlooking.

Sir George Young: I assure the right hon. Lady that there will be a free vote for Conservative Members. Can she confirm that we will debate a substantive motion to allow the House to express a clear view? If a clear view is expressed, will the Government undertake to put all the necessary procedures in place so that the Select Committees can be set up under the new procedure without delay at the beginning of the new Parliament?

Mrs. Beckett: First, how the debate will be taken and under what circumstances remains to be settled. Secondly, it was my impression that the Liaison Committee was anxious to bring the procedures into being, should the House agree to them, before the new Parliament begins. As for the reference to delay, the Liaison Committee makes the point that the records show that new procedures are usually introduced at the beginning of a new Parliament. I think that that happened at the beginning of this Parliament and, considering the substantial change in personnel, the process was particularly speedy. Finally, what happens in a new Parliament is particularly pertinent to a method of selection involving a few Members, which is proposed by the Liaison Committee. However, it is far from clear to me how, without a separate information gathering network, it would make judgments on a new Parliament and new Members.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the role of the Back Bencher could not only be expanded, but produce positive results? Far from it being unusual for a Committee of the great and the good to decide the membership of a particular Committee, until very recently it was the habit of a small Committee of Members of all parties in the House to decide the membership of a number of important bodies. That was not only accepted, but it worked efficiently.

Mrs. Beckett: I am afraid that I do not accept that such a system would offer any expansion of the role of Back Benchers. Indeed, one of my anxieties is that the proposals might create a two-tier system for Back Benchers. In effect, there would be three classes of MP: members of the Government, members of Select Committees—who would select each other—and the rest. Of course I accept that there is a powerful case for expanding the role of Back Benchers and for taking a positive attitude to their work and that of Select Committees, which I in no way criticise—indeed, I applaud it—but that can happen under the system we have now.

Mr. John Butterffil: Whatever the minute detail for the terms of appointment might be, does not the right hon. Lady agree that there is a case for greater democratisation of the process of appointment to Select Committees or, for that matter, to the Chairmen's Panel?

Mrs. Beckett: I have no wish to intrude on private grief and the Select Committee appointments procedures


operated by the Conservative party are not a matter for me, but it is open to Labour Members to self-nominate. Nominations have to be ratified by the parliamentary party and the procedures that we are to adopt, which will produce the list put forward by the Whips, are in many ways similar to those proposed by the Liaison Committee.

Armed Conflict (Parliamentary Motion)

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If she will make it her policy that a substantive motion be tabled in the House, at the earliest opportunity after the commitment of troops to armed conflict, allowing the House to express its view, and allowing hon. Members to table amendments. [130618]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): No. Although I well understand the wish of Members on both sides of the House for a decision-making procedure of the type that my hon. Friend describes and suggests, that has not been the practice of the House.

Mr. Dalyell: Does my hon. Friend recognise that my question purloins exactly the words of a recommendation of our careful colleagues on the Foreign Affairs Committee? Is it wise to simply say no to it? Do Ministers recognise that had they seen both the mess that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and I saw in Serbia and the

Albanian ethnic cleansing in reverse in Kosovo and had the House of Commons been given the chance to excavate the difficulties of going into the Balkans, we might have had wiser policies from the Prime Minister and the United States?

Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend and his colleagues have had the opportunity to go to Serbia and Kosovo. Governments of both complexions have often given Members ample and quick opportunities to raise those issues properly in the House.

Mr. David Heath: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that many hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about this prerogative issue and about sending our young men and women into battle without the matter being debated in the House? Would not it be of assistance to the Executive to have a clear endorsement from the House?

Mr. Tipping: There is no problem at all with the House and its Members having an opportunity and a platform to debate these issues. The Government can benefit from that discussion. What is at odds with that in tactical terms is that it clearly does not make sense for the House to pre-empt any military operation.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory reply to my question, I hope to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Madam Speaker: The point has been noted.

Spending Review (Culture, Media and Sport)

The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on funding for culture and sport. Last Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a spending review outcome that enables me to give the House details of the highest ever levels of public support for sport and the arts in England. Over the next three years, there will be a real terms increase in my Department's expenditure of 13.5 per cent. That has, of course, been made possible by my right hon. Friend's prudent management of the economy over the past three years. Because we have set the economy on a stable course, reduced public debt and got unemployment down, we are now able to make a sustained investment in our cultural and sporting future.
When we began the spending review, I set my top priority as the need to improve the provision of sport in our schools. Sporting opportunities for young people—both in school and after school—have been in serious decline for the past 15 years. There was a 70 per cent. decline in competitive fixtures between state schools under the Tories—between the late 1980s and mid-1990s—and we are now reaping the results of that damage. The Tories tore the heart out of school sport, with after-school activity in particular disappearing from schools across the country. Today, I am able to take the first steps to repair that damage and to help to put English sport back on its feet.
We want to give all children the chance to play sport and to develop their sporting abilities. We want to bring back competitive inter-school leagues in football, rugby, cricket, netball, athletics, and other sports. Playing sport helps individual fulfilment. It assists in boosting academic success, in ensuring health, in reducing crime, and in teaching young people about winning and losing. Building a broad base of sporting opportunity for our young people is our only chance of putting our national sporting performance back on its feet.
In setting today's budget for sport I have listened carefully to the powerful arguments of Trevor Brooking and his team at Sport England, together with UK Sport and the Central Council of Physical Recreation. I have worked closely—and will continue to do so—with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. I am able to tell the House that the annual Exchequer funding for sport, which currently stands at just over £50 million, will double to £102 million by 2003–04, which is an increase of almost 100 per cent. over three years, to help to give our children a sporting chance.
With this new funding, we will be able to double our investment in the programme of school sports co-ordinators that has recently been launched by Sport England. Our aim will be to have at least 1, 000 co-ordinators in place across the country, each of them working with a family of primary and secondary schools to support PE teachers, to bring qualified coaches into schools, to provide links to specialist colleges, sports clubs and national governing bodies, and to put in place competitive sports programmes within and between schools.
In addition, we will be able to provide funds to enhance and modernise the work of many of the governing bodies of particular sports, and to develop further the excellent work of the sportsmatch scheme.
As we set out in our recent sports strategy "A Sporting Future for All", our approach is based both on the regeneration of sport in school and at the grass roots, and on support for our very best sportsmen and sportswomen. The settlement therefore also enables us to provide funds for the running of the United Kingdom Sports Institute. Over and above the figures I have already announced, we are able to provide new, additional funding of £10.5 million for the Commonwealth games in Manchester in 2002.
Earlier today we launched the Football Foundation, a new partnership between the Football Association, the premier league and Government. It will help to bring substantial resources from the broadcasting income of the game into the creation of decent and modern facilities, pitches, changing rooms and equipment at grass-roots level across the country, including in schools. That sits alongside the programme of investment under the capital modernisation fund that we have already announced, to develop space for sport and arts activity in primary schools.
The arts are part of the core script of Government. They enrich our lives in countless ways, and any Government who lose sight of the need to invest fully in the artistic life of the nation put at risk the nurturing of a civilised society. Our policy has throughout been based on three pillars: sustaining artistic and creative excellence, seeking to broaden access to that excellence to the greatest possible number of people, and realising the educational opportunities that can come from involvement in the arts. Those goals remain fundamental to our approach.
Between 1992 and 1997, by contrast, Government funding for the arts fell by 7 per cent. in real terms. For year after year, the last Government starved the arts of the funds that they desperately needed. Two years ago we were able to start putting that right, and I am pleased to announce today that we can do even better over the next three years. Arts funding this year stands at £238 million; in 2003–04, it will be £338 million. With this new settlement, arts funding will have increased by 60 per cent. in real terms in five years.
When Gerry Robinson, chairman of the Arts Council, called in his recent lecture for an increase of £100 million in arts spending, most commentators said there was no chance that that ambition would be fulfilled. Over the next three years, we will fulfil it.
I have asked the Arts Council to give priority to two particular programmes of work within the new allocation. The first is to try and resolve, once and for all, the endemic problems of regional producing theatres up and down the country. In far too many of our towns and cities, theatres are struggling financially. Some are dark for long periods. Artistic excellence is threatened. Following on from the Boyden report, this settlement will enable those problems to be addressed.
Of equal importance is the work that I have asked the Arts Council to lead in developing creative partnerships in particular areas of need, bringing together all the artistic and cultural organisations in an area to work with primary and secondary schools and provide new opportunities for young people to experience, and participate in, the very best of our cultural life. Our aim is to start the process in at least 12 of the most deprived areas in the country.
The chance to experience the arts can transform a child's life. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) said in his powerful maiden speech last week, we need to invest in people's souls as well as their skills. This proposal enables us to start doing so.
In addition to the new investment that I am announcing in sport and the arts, the other areas of my Department's work will benefit. In 2003–04, funding for museums, galleries, libraries and archives will have risen by £61 million over this year's level. That will enable us to maintain our existing commitments to free access; to invest substantial sums in repair and improvement for the buildings housing our national museums; and to transform the present designated museums challenge fund into a new, enhanced fund of £10 million a year to help regional museums, galleries and collections.
I am pleased to announce that, from 2002–03, we will restore the public lending right payments to authors to their full real-terms value. In addition, we will increase funding in cash terms for film and for the royal parks by nearly 10 per cent.; for English Heritage by 8 per cent.; for the English Tourism Council by over 20 per cent.; and for the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment by well over 100 per cent. We are providing funds in the next financial year to ensure that a memorial fountain can be created within the royal parks to commemorate the life of Diana, Princess of Wales.
I invite the House to compare the present Government's record on funding for arts, culture and sport with that of the Conservative party. The Conservative Government cut funding for the arts in real terms in every year of the previous Parliament. Sport was cut by £5 million. Museums were encouraged to introduce charges. Now it is becoming clear that the Tories plan to cut cultural spending again. They are pledged to find cuts of £16 billion from the Government's spending plans by 2003.
People who care about sport, the arts and culture will want to know where the Tory axe will fall. Will they take back the money that we have announced today to put school sport back on its feet? Will regional theatres face funding cuts and an uncertain future? Will the money that we are providing to give children cultural and creative opportunities—and an enriched education—be lost? Will national museums and galleries be forced to reintroduce entry charges? Will the new fund that we are setting up to support regional and local museums be scrapped? Those are the questions that the Conservative party cannot dodge. We await clear and unequivocal answers from the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth).
Today's announcement brings to fruition the commitment that was made in our first spending review, first, to put right the long years of underfunding presided over by the Tories and, secondly, to build on the foundations that we have laid in order to widen the opportunities for everyone to enjoy culture and sport and to get more out of life. There are few more important tasks than that.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for the brief advance notice that we received of it.
Progress towards the statement has followed a familiar pattern. There are, in descending order of accuracy, accidental leaks, deliberate leaks and leaks from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Leaks from the Department are designed to create headlines such as "School Sport Cash Bonanza" and "£100 million boost for arts in UK". I have to give it to the Secretary of State: he has become rather good at headlines, but he has been up to his old tricks again. The spending figures that he has announced today have been fiddled, spun and inflated out of all recognition.
Two years ago, many people were prepared to give the Secretary of State's extravagant promises the benefit of the doubt. Two years ago, we were also told of a cash bonanza for the arts and sport. What have we had since then? We have had theatres closing, orchestras closing, cultural vandalism, playing fields still being sold off, less sport in schools, thousands of heritage sites officially "at risk" and a near trebling of the balance of trade deficit in tourism.
What has the Secretary of State brought us? He has brought us any number of eye-catching initiatives with which he is personally associated—such as the shambles over the United Kingdom Sports Institute, the fiasco over Wembley stadium and the prospect of having to host the world athletics championship with nowhere for it to be held. He is also associated with a world cup bid that, according to the Minister for Sport, was doomed from the start, and, of course, with the dome—that perfect emblem of new Labour.
Ministers farcically still maintain that the dome is a huge success, although it has swallowed £140 million in extra funds in the past year and is again teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. The Secretary of State will have no compunction at all about bailing out the dome with money that could have been used on any number of good causes, including regeneration.
The Secretary of State runs a Department for Culture in which there is a culture of dither, delay, incompetence and confusion. He stands accused of presiding over a Department where there is
an us and them mentality which divides the Department and its stakeholders all the way down.
He is accused of opting for "the lowest common denominator" and having "unclear and fraught relationships" with the bodies that he sponsors. He stands accused of a "lack of focus", "management by nagging" and assessment by "gossip".
Who has levelled these accusations? They are from an internal review by a panel chaired by the head of Inland Revenue, whose report on the Secretary of State's Department is entitled "The Pale Yellow Amoeba". The Secretary of State has turned his Department into something resembling the lowest form of life, with no backbone and a tendency to spread itself by random osmosis. However, the arts, sport, heritage and tourism deserve better than that. They also deserve more honesty over their funding arrangements.
According to the Secretary of State's mathematics, his departmental expenditure will increase by £225 million by 2003–04. Someone, however, has been spinning, and that figure miraculously ballooned into £485 million, as reported in some newspapers and on BBC Online—which should know better. As I am sure that the Secretary of State would not wish to be associated with an artificially inflated figure, I hope that he will take the opportunity shortly to repudiate it.
While entering a general caveat that, like the rest of the country, the Opposition are increasingly sceptical of any figures from the Government, I shall make a leap of faith. I shall assume that the Secretary of State's figure for departmental spending next year—stated at £1.12 billion—is correct. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, on page 175 of his recent annual report, his departmental spending is shown as £1.1 billion? Will he therefore confirm—it is not a very difficult sum; he should not have too much trouble over this—that the difference between the two is £20 million? Will he comment on that in the light of his own admission that £60 million of next year's funding has already been announced?
Looking further ahead, the Secretary of State predicts total departmental spending of £1.24 billion in 2003–04. Will he confirm that that is an increase of £140 million over three years, not £225 million, let alone £485 million?
Will the Secretary of State also take into account the impact of the Government's raid on the national lottery, which was established by the previous Government—whom he so derided today—and which so far has produced £1 billion for 3, 000 sport centres and projects across the country and millions of pounds for the arts and heritage? Is it not the case that, on the assumption that levels of play remain constant, the lottery beneficiaries will be denied about £130 million annually which they had every right to expect would be theirs?
The raid on the lottery, coupled with a decision to transfer all the Millennium Commission's share into the new opportunities fund from next year, means that, having taken account of the consequences of today's announcement, the arts and sport can look forward to a net reduction in their expected total funding of almost £300 million and £360 million respectively over the next three years. Stripped of spin, that is the sum of the right hon. Gentleman's achievements—some bonanza!
No wonder the Government have chosen today to claim credit for the news that, in 1997, the football authorities agreed to plough 5 per cent. of their television rights money back into the grass roots of sport. When the football posts go up in the garden of No. 10, we know that things must be really bad. It is typical of a Government who take credit for everything, but take responsibility for nothing.
Instead of devoting so much of his statement this afternoon to misleading attacks on the previous Administration and the Opposition, why does the Secretary of State not get his act together? We are more than three years into this Government. People in sport, the arts, heritage and tourism are looking for delivery, not promises; results, not spin doctoring; clarity, not confusion. They will get none of those things from the "pale yellow amoeba", and it is time the right hon. Gentleman was written out of the core script of government.

Mr. Smith: It is perhaps no accident that the hon. Gentleman wanted to talk about absolutely anything but the statement that I have just made. He gave us a little tour of the horizon. He touched on the dome, which of course has no Exchequer funding. He speculated about misleading newspaper reports, for which presumably the editors of the newspapers are responsible, not me. He alluded briefly to the excellent and extremely positive peer review report on the workings of my Department,

and then he gave us the tired old story about the national lottery, ignoring the fact that the arts and sports were each promised £1.8 billion at the outset of the lottery from the seven-year period of funding. They are now set to receive more than £1.8 billion each.
In addition, the hon. Gentleman ignored the fact that the new opportunities fund, which we have been able to create with the additional funds that have come into the national lottery, has provided money to put into after-school clubs, school sports co-ordinators, drama, music and arts for schoolchildren; and, through the new opportunities fund green spaces initiative, to bring back some of the playing fields that were sold off under the Conservative Government. I presume that that is money that the hon. Gentleman derides, as he did at the Tory party conference, when he said:
A new pot for health and education, things that shouldn't be funded by the Lottery.
In that respect, he disagrees clearly with the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride), who told ITN on 24 May that the public purse should do things which it ought to be doing, like spending the lottery cash on health and education. We are entitled to ask which Tory party is speaking here. Is it the one represented by the hon. Member for East Surrey or the one represented by his hon. Friend?
The hon. Gentleman had the gall to say that playing fields were still being sold off—this from the party that sold off 5, 000 playing fields during its time in office. In that time, the average number of sales was running at 40 a month. 1 am pleased to say that it is now down to three a month. That is still too many, and we are working on that, but it is a considerable improvement on the record of the previous Government.
I can confirm to the House that this settlement from the Chancellor—new money announced in his statement last week—amounts to £20 million in the first year, £130 million in the second year and £200 million in the third year. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for calling it a bonanza for school sport, because that is precisely what it is.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in that outpouring of inarticulate rubbish which, unbelievably, he must have spent some time preparing, the Opposition spokesman has explained why the people of Manchester have thrown out every Tory Member of Parliament and councillor?
The hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) failed to mention the Government money that is going towards the opening and closing ceremonies of the Commonwealth games, which is important for the Queen's golden jubilee games that will be staged in Manchester in 2002. Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a city such as Manchester we are highly gratified that, by assisting school sport in the country's premier sporting city and by connecting schoolchildren with the arts, he is providing hope, training and a future—cultural and sporting—for the children of this country, who suffered so badly under the Tory Government? His statement is excellent and we look forward to the next review, when we are sure it will be even better.

Mr. Smith: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. His analysis of the work output and psychology of the


hon. Member for East Surrey is—as ever—absolutely accurate. He is particularly right about the importance of ensuring that cultural and sporting opportunities are available to all our young people, especially in our schools.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: I will try to stick to fact rather than the fiction that we heard from the Conservative Benches.
The funding is welcome, although it is long overdue—it could have been allocated last year or the year before that. We expected more over the three years.
Sports funding will increase from £50 million to £102 million over four years. Will the Secretary of State tell us how much will be available in the first year? That is crucial to the sporting fraternity. Will he also tell us the amount for the second year, if possible?
There will be funding of £100 million for the arts. That is more than welcome because, until now, that service has been neglected by the right hon. Gentleman's Department. How much will be allocated during that first crucial year? Many performances and some theatres will be saved if funding is received during the first year.
I welcome even more the initiative on sport in schools. That matter has been energetically debated for some time on both sides of the House. The announcement is positive, but how will it reflect on the youth service, where sport is neglected? Sport in schools is extremely important, but at present, many schoolchildren do not continue with sport when they reach the end of their school life. They may move into other fields—but certainly not the sporting field.
How can we help the youth service? In Merseyside and Manchester, there are youth games, but they are struggling. The games are supported by sponsorship, but each year it becomes thinner and meaner. How will the settlement help that youth service work?
Swimming was not mentioned in the statement, although the phrase "other sports" was used. Swimming is important not only for those in school, but for those out of school—perhaps especially for those aged over 50. It is important that swimming be considered. Many swimming baths and their buildings have come to the end of their useful life. They have been patched and repaired, but many local authorities have great difficulty in finding any funding to replace swimming baths. How will the settlement help?
I welcome the 20 per cent. increase for the English Tourism Council. We know that a forum has been established, but so far we have heard precious little from it, because the ETC cannot get to grips with it. In time, that will occur, but I should like some of that settlement to go to seaside resorts. I acknowledge that I have an interest, but seaside resorts are important.
I welcome the inclusion of regional theatres, but will traditional and popular theatre arts—such as dance—still be encouraged, along with modern artistic trends? They do not command a large audience, but they should be considered—even though they do not put bums on seats.
Will the current museum charges be stopped?

Mr. Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very constructive comments and questions.
First, on the specific figures, for sport, the figures are £52 million for this year, £67 million for next year, £83 million for the following year and £102 million for the following year. For the arts, the figures are £238 million for this year, £253 million for next year, £298 million for the following year and £338 million for the following year.
The hon. Gentleman asked about sport in schools and how that would relate to the youth service. It will of course be part of the task of the school sports co-ordinators to build those links, not just between schools but between schools and the youth service, local sporting clubs, and specialist sporting colleges, because it is those links that can encourage youngsters, when they leave the formal school environment, to maintain sporting prowess and activity further into life.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about swimming, it will of course be included as part of that whole approach.
The English Tourism Council is already hard at work with a special working party, looking at the issues relating to seaside resorts. I very much look forward to the fruits of those researches because, as the hon. Gentleman and many of my hon. Friends will undoubtedly recognise, seaside resorts that have depended on traditional tourism activity, which is in decline, do require special attention, and it is being given to them. That is one of the reasons why I am very pleased that, for example, we have ensured assisted area status for quite a number of seaside resorts already.
In relation to the arts, there will of course be scope in regional theatre for traditional as well as modern theatrical work. In relation to museums and galleries, we are of course pledged that those national museums and galleries that are currently free to everyone will remain so.

Mr. John Maxton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the statement, and in particular on the extra money that is going into sport. May I ask him to ensure that, both in terms of provision for money and money for schools, it goes to areas of deprivation above all else? It is there that we need to increase the level of fitness and health among our youngsters and among our adults. Secondly, may I ask him to ensure that some—in fact, a large part—of that money goes to improve the facilities for girls and women in sport, which are sadly lacking at the present time? Indeed, I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that no grants are given to any sporting organisation, at any level, that still carries out policies that discriminate against women in sport.

Mr. Smith: The answer to the question on deprivation is yes. We will indeed wish to ensure that the particular needs of areas of deprivation, both urban and rural, will be addressed. The need for facilities for girls and women playing sport is very much recognised now by Sport England, UK Sport and ourselves. Indeed, it is one of the rules for lottery funding that when any discrimination is practised by a particular sporting organisation, it does not qualify for funding.

Mr. Robert Key: The continuing disbursement of taxpayers' money across a wide range of cultural and sporting activities in my constituency is very important and we are grateful for it. There is, however, one


area for which the Secretary of State is solely and wholly responsible, and that is the guardianship of Stonehenge. Will he now say whether this announcement will make any difference to the speed and effectiveness of finding a solution, which has been sought by Governments over many years, to the problem of the visitor centre at Stonehenge? I regret to say that, under this Government, things have been no different from how they were under the previous Government, except that a lot of money has been spent on—no doubt very worthy—design concepts and reports. We have as yet seen nothing on the ground to improve what is one of this country's greatest tourist monuments.

Mr. Smith: I am afraid that I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Essential roadworks to the two major roads that affect the Stonehenge area are included in the forward roads programme, and have been for the past two years. Planning work is well under way and, as he will recognise, it takes time to plan for, obtain the necessary permissions for and then construct road schemes. That process is now well under way.
On the visitor centre at Stonehenge, we have made available this financial year to English Heritage the funds necessary to buy the site for the visitor centre.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: I too congratulate my right hon. Friend and Ministers on the statement, which is a substantial improvement.
May I ask for clarification on one issue on which we have corresponded and that I have mentioned before? There is a weakness in coaching education, sport psychology and sport medicine. One way that we could use some of the new licence fee money is for the BBC to have a public service sports channel covering sports education in schools and coaching. Will that be allowed under the new regulations?
Given the fantastic achievements of Pete Sampras, and of Tiger Woods at the weekend, could we not devise a new way of recognising—it could be something like an order of merit—outstanding international sporting achievement in this country?

Mr. Smith: On launching any new channel, the BBC would have to come to me for approval to do so. If it came to me with a proposition that involved setting up, at huge expense to the licence fee payer, a purely commercial sports channel, I would have serious doubts about whether that was a core part of the BBC's responsibility. However, if it made a proposal that was particularly focused on assistance for school sports, that would be a completely different matter. It is not for me to tell the BBC that that is what it should be doing.
On my hon. Friend's general welcome for the statement and his point about the need to improve our national sporting performance, unless we get the grass roots of sport right and, in particular, encourage sporting participation on a wide scale among young people in schools, we will never produce the great athletes and great sportsmen and women of the future that we will need if we are to make our way internationally.

Mr. David Faber: Will the Secretary of State confirm the exact amount that is included in his statement towards the building of Pickett's Lock? If the

answer is nothing at all, can he say when he expects a further lottery application to be made and how much that will be for?

Mr. Smith: As the hon. Gentleman will know, UK Athletics is preparing, with the Lee Valley regional park authority, a lottery application for funding to assist with the creation of Pickett's Lock. No Exchequer money is earmarked for that purpose, nor should it be.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the past two or three minutes since the Tory Front-Bench spokesman sat down, at least two Tory Members have spoken—and they both want money? They want money for Stonehenge and money for Pickett's Lock and they are the same people who marched into the Lobbies not only to close school playing fields, but the pits as well. The result is that we lost all the miners' welfares that produced all the fast bowlers that worked down the pit and played in the Bassetlaw league with me before going on to play for England. Now they have all gone.
Unlike Tory Members, I support public expenditure. When my right hon. Friend talks of the language of priorities, will he bear it in mind that we want baths at Bolsover—write that down—and that I will do the Pavarotti at Bolsover castle?

Mr. Smith: I am delighted that my hon. Friend is in fine fettle and that he will ensure that Bolsover receives the best possible service in arts and sport. I am sure that we shall all make sure that that happens.
My hon. Friend rightly points to a fundamental dichotomy in the views of Tory Members. The shadow Chancellor keeps on telling us that he wants to spend less public money and that he wants to cut public expenditure—I am sure that he would make the Department for Culture, Media and Sport one of the first Departments to bear the brunt of his axe—while other Tory Members get up to demand more spending. There is something wrong there.

Mr. John Redwood: Can the Secretary of State tell us whether his core script for what Mr. Gould now calls a tarnished brand includes financial provision to pay for the losses of the dome in its remaining months of trading? If the Secretary of State is going to tell us that there is no money in his budget and no money from the lottery, is he worried that the New Millennium Experience Company is trading while insolvent?

Mr. Smith: Mr. Smith: No, and no.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I too congratulate my right hon. Friend on obtaining this huge amount of real money, especially the increase for English Heritage. He will be aware that my constituency has a high proportion of listed buildings, which are extremely expensive to look after. Will he agree to review all of Calderdale with a view to seeing how we can keep our wealth of heritage in good condition? Will he accept my invitation to visit Piece Hall, which is a unique asset that is about to make a bid to the English Heritage lottery fund?

Mr. Smith: I should be delighted to accept my hon. Friend's invitation to re-visit Piece Hall, which I last saw


some years ago. She is right to draw attention to the importance of heritage in Halifax, and I shall draw her proposal for a review of all of Calderdale's heritage to the attention of English Heritage which, I am sure, will be extremely interested in her suggestion.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: Following the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), can the Secretary of State tell us more about the dome's financing? Why has his Department yet to announce which rival bid is going to be accepted for the dome? Has that announcement been postponed because the reality is that there will be no recompense to the public purse when the dome is sold, as the money will all go towards paying off its debts? Will the Secretary of State confirm that?

Mr. Smith: That question has nothing whatsoever to do with the statement about Exchequer expenditure. Analysis of contending bids for the future life of the dome—a process in which I am not involved at all, as the hon. Lady knows, having been present at the sitting of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport at which I gave evidence—is due to reach a conclusion later this week.

Mr. Barry Jones: My right hon. Friend appears to have carried out a smash and grab raid of no mean proportions on heavily guarded Treasury funds. In the rough old world of politics and the bitchy world of arts politics he should receive great credit for that.
What has my right hon. Friend done, and how will his statement help, to assist the beleaguered regional orchestras of Britain, not least the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, to which I subscribe and of which I am a life member? Does my right hon. Friend know that Peter Johnson, the chairman of the orchestra, has laboured manfully against heavy financial problems to keep that great world class orchestra on the road? Will the stabilisation fund now be bigger? How will my right hon. Friend link the future of that great orchestra to the schools of Liverpool, where there are great social problems, but where the orchestra is giving the lead to develop a great society and helping to regenerate Merseyside's economy?

Mr. Smith: I have to disagree about this being a smash and grab raid. It is, of course, a prudent and sustainable increase in spending resulting from the Chancellor's prudent handing of the economy over the last couple of years.
The Arts Council put in place a substantial package of support for regional orchestras as a result of the previous comprehensive spending review settlement that we made available to it, which included wiping out historic deficits, using stabilisation programmes, and a forward plan of financial assistance to each orchestra. That included the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic. I know that there is discussion about the precise nature of the stabilisation programme and how it will affect the Liverpool Phil. I hope that the programme will be happily agreed by all sides and that the Liverpool Phil will be able to survive and thrive well into the future. In taking a lead in working with schools in Liverpool, the Philharmonic is charting

the way for the creative partnerships approach, particularly in deprived areas, which I set out in the statement.

Mr. John Butterfill: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that arts provision is not concentrated in the great cities, and that some goes out to smaller towns and villages? Does he agree that the work of travelling orchestras, such as the Bournemouth Symphony orchestra, is particularly important, and that their work is more expensive than that of static orchestras and therefore requires greater provision? Does he share my regret that it was under his Government that the Bournemouth Sinfonietta was forced to close for lack of funds? Will he join me in supporting the Bournemouth Symphony orchestra this week at the Promenade concerts, and will he show his support in a rather more tangible form in future?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman is of course right that funding should be available not only in cities but in rural areas. That is entirely understood and put into practice by the Arts Council. Its support for the Bournemouth Symphony orchestra is extremely welcome, and it takes into account the particular needs of orchestras that conduct touring work. I went to the Proms last Sunday evening and will go again on Thursday evening, and I regret that I will be unable to go a third time in one week.

Mr. John Cryer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that outer London has been denuded of theatres, cinemas and art galleries for many years? In Hornchurch, however, we have the Queen's theatre, which is the most successful of its kind in the entire country. Despite money from the London Arts Board, the theatre still has a shortfall. When can it look forward to receiving some of the Government's welcome largesse?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the excellent work of the Queen's theatre in Hornchurch. I suggest that he discusses the matter with the London Arts Board, which will be in a position to make decisions in the next year or two.

Mr. Christopher Fraser: Despite the initiatives announced by the Secretary of State, the figures show that sport, tourism, heritage and the arts seem to be the losers in the comprehensive spending review. Does not the right hon. Gentleman consistently punch below his weight when it comes to departmental spending?

Mr. Smith: First, they are winners, not losers. Secondly, no.

Mr. John McDonnell: May I declare a non-pecuniary interest as vice-president of Hayes football club. As my right hon. Friend will know, we reached mid-table in the nationwide conference last season and fully expect to be promoted to the league in the coming season. Just in case some mishap prevents us from being promoted, will he assure me that conference clubs will be able to share in the resources of the Football Foundation and, more importantly, in the decision-making processes of bodies such as the Football Association council?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend will, I trust, convey my congratulations to Hayes football club on its undoubted success. The detail of how the FA makes its decisions is up to it, but we have encouraged it, in its democratisation process, to make real change. The FA' s structure has been modernised over the past year or so, and that is extremely welcome.

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is a substantial point of order in relation to the procedure for electing your successor as Speaker. It follows points of order raised on Thursday and by me yesterday.
My credentials for raising the matter are that, under the present rules, if the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Sir J. Morris) were in any way indisposed or unable to be present, the task of pointing to a colleague on 23 October would fall to me.
The task would be invidious to the point of being impossible. It would be deeply unsatisfactory to leave the crucial running order of choice to the prejudices, predilections and taste of myself or, much more likely, the taste that the right hon. Gentleman or my right hon. and learned Friend may show towards the candidates for the Speakership.
I have been involved in the choice of Speaker since Horace King succeeded Sir Harry Hylton-Foster all those years ago—in the first instance in the very lowly capacity of parliamentary private secretary to RHS Crossman.
The situation that confronts the House on 23 October 2000 is totally different from anything that has gone before. It is entirely novel because there are a multiplicity of credible candidates—at least a dozen at the last count. I know that the Canadian House of Commons has a system whereby everyone is a candidate unless they rule themselves out. [Laughter.] I make it clear that I fall into the latter category.
If the established rules are to be changed, it will have to be done in the next couple of days. There is no solution that any of us can see that does not have some downside, but perhaps the least bad would be a secret ballot by elimination so that three candidates are left who would then be submitted to the established procedures of the House. In such a situation, under the existing rules the person acting as Father of the House would have the guidance of colleagues on what to do.
My point is that at least the matter ought to be discussed; it should not be a matter that is undiscussed. The only practical way of doing so, Madam Speaker, is for you to postpone your date of going until early November, so that the House can make up its mind in a sensible fashion.

Madam Speaker: I know that one or two other Members have similar points of order.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall at the last election of the Speaker in 1992 that, although an hon. Member was proposed and there was an amendment—proposing yourself—it was generally regarded that there was at least one other candidate who was talked about as being in the running. Yet, the matter was settled and you won with a handsome majority of—I think—372.
It is true that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has said, there will be more candidates in the field this time. I do not know how the problem can be resolved. There is one way if there are


fewer than six candidates. There are six desks in the two Lobbies and each desk could represent one candidate. People who wanted to vote for a candidate could go to one of the desks. That method would deal with six or fewer candidates, although it would almost certainly result in no overall majority and the process would have to continue.
The alternative, which you have probably looked at, is a little more messy. If the Father of the House calls first one candidate, then the second and there is an amendment, the net result would be people having to sit on their hands, abstaining, until we reached the final candidate. A Speaker might eventually manage to get elected at the end. That is the alternative to having different desks for fewer than six candidates and dealing with the matter in a subsequent ballot.

Mr. Martin Bell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It might help the House if you shared with us your assessment of whether you believe that a democratic and fair system is in place for the choice of your successor.

Madam Speaker: To answer the last point first, yes, I do believe that a democratic system is in place. I also believe that all Members of Parliament are sufficiently experienced to carry out that procedure and I am sure that they will eventually arrive at the right choice.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) makes a rather unique suggestion, which I find interesting. To respond to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I am aware of the concern felt on both sides of the House that hon. Members should be informed about the procedure for the election of my successor. I have been using my best endeavours, and shall continue to do so, to ensure that, before we rise for the summer, each individual Member of Parliament receives a letter that fully sets out the procedure for the election of the Speaker. I want to do that as soon as possible. The matter does not rest wholly with me, but I have the responsibility for it. I want each and every Member to have a letter, couched in the simplest possible language, explaining the procedure.
I assure the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) that the process will be democratic. The House has long experience of electing Speakers and I like to think that, throughout our history, we have always come up with the right person.

Mr. Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. However great the wisdom enshrined in the letter, ought not the matter to be discussed by the House? We face a novel situation and no one can think of an answer that could be embodied in a letter, however learned those who write it—even one that will, no doubt, be signed by you. Should there not be a debate in the House of Commons, so that views on the procedure of the election can at least be aired? In the circumstances, I ask you, quite seriously, to consider postponing by a few days your departure from us.

Madam Speaker: The wisdom of the House will enable it to follow the procedures. The situation is not unique. The hon. Gentleman tells me that there are many candidates. I read the newspapers as much as he does, and I do not know whether they are right about all of the names that have been bandied about in recent days, but there is some time to go yet and the House should await the letter that is coming to Members. That letter will not be signed by me, as, according to existing procedures, the election will not be my responsibility. I am as concerned as the House to ensure that we carry out the proper procedures and I am doing everything I can as quickly as possible to achieve that end.

Mr. Clive Efford: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I shall only take a point of order that does not relate to the previous one, because there is nothing more that I can say about that matter. We await a letter being sent to all hon. Members explaining the procedures, and I cannot take the matter further at this stage. It is not for me to change the business of the House: that is a matter for the Leader of the House, in accordance with the will of the House.

Made in Britain Mark

Mr. Tim Loughton: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a standard Made in Britain mark to be used on goods predominantly manufactured and foodstuffs produced in the United Kingdom; to provide for regulation of the use of the mark; and for connected purposes.
This is the penultimate ten-minute Bill over which you will preside, Madam Speaker, so I have made sure that it is a good one. I am sure that, like me, you choose to buy British on preference. I like to buy British goods: I have always driven British cars, which have never failed me, and I always endeavour to buy British-sproduced food in supermarkets, or, even better, at my local farmers market, or, better still, at my local Women's Institute food market—the epitome of middle Britain's good taste. In other shops, whether they sell electrical goods, furniture, tools or other products, I always opt for the British-made product, when it is competitively priced—much to the chagrin of my wife, who wants a Volvo.
Buying British should be a sign of quality—an act whereby people can be assured of certain standards, especially animal welfare standards in the case of meat and dairy produce; an act in support of British jobs and investment; an act wherein one can be reasonably sure whence the product comes. However, the act of buying British is becoming increasingly confusing and difficult. British companies wanting to promote the British origin of their goods are increasingly being frustrated, and my Bill seeks to address that problem.
My scheme should not be confused with previous attempts, particularly by Governments, to launch variations of buy British campaigns. Back in 1968, a few weeks after devaluation, Harold Wilson produced the "I'm backing Britain" campaign. That campaign was made that much easier because the pound bought less overseas. People were encouraged to sport tee-shirts and badges emblazoned with "I'm backing Britain" over a union jack. A group of Surbiton secretaries worked an extra half an hour a day for free and many thousands followed in the teeth of great opposition from trade unions. The Duke of Edinburgh even lent his support.
The composers Tony Hatch and Jackie Trent penned a song for Bruce Forsyth with these lyrics:

I'm Backing Britain, yes I'm Backing Britain.
We're all Backing Britain.
The Feeling is growing,
So let's keep it going,
The good times are blowing our way.

I can see you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, tapping your toes at that. A sensational hit it was.
Predictably, the campaign failed, as did Harold Wilson's re-election prospects. A rival campaign set up by the late Robert Maxwell under the title, "Help Britain, Help yourself' was also a failure. How prescient that was.
There have been no fewer than seven exasperated attempts by Trade Secretaries of State over the past 20 years to promote buy British campaigns to reverse accelerating current account deficits. In 1985, support was given to the "Think Britain" campaign, which was fronted by David Jacobs and Ernie Wise. More recently, Lord Feldman promoted a "Better Made in Britain" campaign

with a consortium of manufacturers. Most notoriously, in 1992 the Labour party launched a party political broadcast that was fronted by Lord Puttnam, which bemoaned the scarcity of British goods. Perhaps those concerned had not shopped around enough. That buy British campaign was scuppered before it had even started by the backing music to the broadcast, which turned out to be the seventh symphony of a very unBritish Ludwig van Beethoven.
In 1997, the comments of Lord Haskins at the Labour party conference that the British brand is irrelevant in international markets and should be ditched hardly helped the cause. Most recently, such campaigns have been thwarted by the potential to fall foul of article 6 of the European Community treaty that forbids discrimination on the ground of nationality. Rather closer to home, we are aware of the recent lawsuit against the House because of the choice of a British-led contractor to provide the bronze cladding for Portcullis House, which allegedly constituted a buy British policy, which was not allowed.
I gather that an attempt to make a "Made in France" label compulsory was ruled out in a European court case because it would enable British consumers to exercise their natural prejudice against French goods. With notoriously misnamed goods such as French golden delicious apples, surely the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 would do the trick perfectly effectively.
A few months ago I was approached by a company in my constituency in Worthing. ETI is a leading manufacturer of quality temperature-measuring instruments. The directors wanted to include a logo on their products to indicate that they were made in Britain. They were proud to promote British products as a major provider of local jobs in Worthing, and because the made-in-Britain tag is seen as a sign of quality, particularly overseas. The directors saw it as a good marketing tool.
When they made inquiries to the Department of Trade and Industry about what made-in-Britain logos were available and what the Department would recommend, they were told, "We don't really go in for that sort of thing." Instead, they were steered towards using "Product of the EC" labels. Subsequently I tabled a parliamentary question to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I asked
what "Made in Britain" emblems are available from his Department to British companies to mark the country of origin of their products—[Official Report, 11 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 473W.]
That yielded the untypically straightforward and underspun one-word reply, "None."
That is not good enough. Besides, we are missing a trick. The National Farmers Union has recently launched its red and blue tractor logo to act as a guarantee of high standards, farm assurance and competitive pricing on British agricultural products. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) tried to initiate something similar in his private Member's Bill earlier this year. I commend the NFU and we can learn much from its scheme, but foreign-grown produce complying to British standards can still use the mark even if it is only finished off in the UK. We rely solely on the good will of multiple retailers to police the system. That is independent of Government enforcement.
My Bill, therefore, will establish a standard "Made in Britain" logo. It could be the equivalent of the simple lion mark on eggs or a union jack-vested British bulldog, for example. I suggest a national competition to come up with an appropriate and high-profile symbol. The logo would be administered by the Department of Trade and Industry, and firms with predominantly British-produced items could apply to use the logo on payment of a small subscription fee to cover the running costs.
The definition of "Made in Britain" would be determined by reference to the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 or the North American Free Trade Agreement's de minimis customs provisions, for example. The scheme would be entirely voluntary, but subscribing firms would have to undertake to maintain their qualifications for using the logo, and that would be policed by the DTI.
I believe that my scheme could operate without infringing single market competition law. It would have minimal cost, but the potential gearing effect for British firms could be considerable. The scheme has gained the support of the Federation of Small Businesses and other trade bodies, and the NFU has raised no objections.
My Bill would enable the British public to make informed choices and would encourage British firms to promote the Britishness of their goods as a strong marketing tool, both in the UK and overseas. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tim Loughton, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. James Gray, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Mr. Stephen O'Brien, Mr. Robert Syms, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. Nicholas Soames, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. Andrew Tyrie, Mr. Andrew Robathan and Mr. Graham Brady.

MADE IN BRITAIN MARK

Mr. Tim Loughton accordingly presented a Bill to establish a standard Made in Britain mark to be used on goods predominantly manufactured and foodstuffs produced in the United Kingdom; to provide for regulation of the use of the mark; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Monday 13 November, and to be printed [Bill 170].

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

A GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR EQUAL TREATMENT IN EMPLOYMENT AND OCCUPATION

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13540/99. a draft Council Directive establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation; and supports the Government's welcome for the principle of such action whilst remaining convinced of the need for the proposals to be made clear and workable; and notes the Government's intention to negotiate to this end, and to ensure that the proposals take proper account of the legitimate concerns of employers and make a real difference to the lives of those whom they are designed to protect.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]

The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 115.

Division No. 284]
[4.37 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cotter, Brian

Ainger, Nick
Cousins, Jim

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cranston, Ross

Allan, Richard
Crausby, David

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cummings, John

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cunningham, Jim (CoV'try S)

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Darvill, Keith

Ashton, Joe
Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Atherton, Ms Candy
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Atkins, Charlotte
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Austin, John
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Baker, Norman
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Ballard, Jackie


Barnes, Harry
Dean, Mrs Janet

Barron, Kevin
Dismore, Andrew

Beard, Nigel
Donohoe, Brian H

Begg, Miss Anne
Doran, Frank

Beith, Rt Hon A J
Dowd, Jim

Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Bennett, Andrew F
Efford, Clive

Berry, Roger
Ellman, Mrs Louise

Best, Harold
Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Betts, Clive
Fearn, Ronnie

Blackman, Liz
Fisher, Mark

Blears, Ms Hazel
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Blizzard, Bob
Flint, Caroline

Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Flynn, Paul

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Don (Bath)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Bradshaw, Ben
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Brake, Tom
Fyfe, Maria

Breed, Colin
Gerrard, Neil

Brinton, Mrs Helen
Gibson, Dr Ian

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gidley, Sandra

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Godman, Dr Norman A

Buck, Ms Karen
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Burden, Richard
Grocott, Bruce

Burgon, Colin
Grogan, John

Burstow, Paul
Hain, Peter

Butler, Mrs Christine
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Cable, Dr Vincent
Hanson, David

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)
Harris, Dr Evan


Harvey, Nick

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Campbell-Savours, Dale
Healey, John

Cann, Jamie
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Caplin, Ivor
Hepburn, Stephen

Casale, Roger
Heppell, John

Caton, Martin
Hinchliffe, David

Cawsey, Ian
Hodge, Ms Margaret

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Home Robertson, John

Chaytor, David
Hopkins, Kelvin

Chisholm, Malcolm
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hurst, Alan

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hutton, John

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Iddon, Dr Brian

Clelland, David
Illsley, Eric

Clwyd, Ann
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Coaker, Vernon
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cohen, Harry
Jamieson, David

Coleman, Iain
Jenkins, Brian

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Corbett, Robin
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Corbyn, Jeremy






Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Pendry, Tom

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Perham, Ms Linda

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pickthall, Colin

Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)
Pike, Peter L


Pond, Chris

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pope, Greg

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pound, Stephen

Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Prosser, Gwyn

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Purchase, Ken

Keeble, Ms Sally
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Kelly, Ms Ruth
Rapson, Syd

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Raynsford, Nick


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Khabra, Piara S
Rendel, David

Kidney, David
Rogers, Allan

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rooney, Terry

Kirkwood, Archy
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rowlands, Ted

Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Roy, Frank

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Ruane, Chris

Lepper, David
Ruddock, Joan

Leslie, Christopher
Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Linton, Martin
Salter, Martin

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Savidge, Malcolm

Lock, David
Sawford, Phil

Love, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian

McAllion, John
Shaw, Jonathan

McAvoy, Thomas
Sheerman, Barry

McCabe, Steve
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McDonagh, Siobhain
Shipley, Ms Debra

Macdonald, Calum
Skinner, Dennis

McDonnell, John
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mackinlay, Andrew
Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

McNamara, Kevin


McNulty, Tony
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

MacShane, Denis
Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

Mc Walter, Tony
Soley, Clive

Mahon, Mrs Alice
Spellar, John

Mallaber, Judy
Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Steinberg, Gerry

Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stevenson, George

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Martlew, Eric
Stinchcombe, Paul

Maxton, John
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Merron, Gillian
Stringer, Graham

Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Swinney, John

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Moffatt, Laura
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Moore, Michael
Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Temple-Morris, Peter

Morley, Elliot
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle(B'ham Yardley)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Timms, Stephen


Tipping, Paddy

Mountford, Kali
Todd, Mark

Naysmith, Dr Doug
Tonge, Dr Jenny

Norris, Dan
Trickett, Jon

Oaten, Mark
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)

O'Hara, Eddie
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Olner, Bill
Tyler, Paul

Öpik, Lembit
Tynan, Bill

Organ, Mrs Diana
Vis, Dr Rudi

Osborne, Ms Sandra
Wallace, James

Pearson, Ian
Walley, Ms Joan




Ward, Ms Claire
Winnick, David

Wareing, Robert N
Wood, Mike

White, Brian
Woodward, Shaun

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd
Worthington, Tony

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Wray, James


Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Wyatt, Derek

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Tellers for the Ayes:

Willis, Phil
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

Wills, Michael
Mr. Mike Hall.



NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Amess, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Bercow, John
Loughton, Tim

Beresford, Sir Paui
Luff, Peter

Brand, Dr Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Brazier, Julian
McIntosh, Miss Anne

Browning, Mrs Angela
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Maclean, Rt Hon David

Burnett, John
McLoughlin, Patrick

Butterfill, John
Madel, Sir David

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Malins, Humfrey


Maples, John

Clappison, James
Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
May, Mrs Theresa

Collins, Tim
Nicholls, Patrick

Cran, James
Norman, Archie

Curry, Rt Hon David
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Ottaway, Richard

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Paterson, Owen

Duncan Smith, Iain
Pickles, Eric

Evans, Nigel
Prior, David

Faber, David
Randall, John

Fabricant, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John

Fallon, Michael
Robathan, Andrew

Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robertson, Laurence

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Fox, Dr Liam
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Fraser, Christopher
Ruffley, David

Gale, Roger
St Aubyn, Nick

Garnier, Edward
Sanders, Adrian

Gill, Christopher
Sayeed, Jonathan

Gorrie, Donald
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Gray, James
Shepherd, Richard

Green, Damian
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Grieve, Dominic
Spring, Richard

Gummer, Rt Hon John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Hague, Rt Hon William
Steen, Anthony

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Streeter, Gary

Hammond, Philip
Swayne, Desmond

Hawkins, Nick
Syms, Robert

Hayes, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter

Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Taylor, Sir Teddy

Horam, John
Townend, John

Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Trend, Michael

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Tyrie, Andrew

Jenkin, Bernard
Viggers, Peter

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waterson, Nigel


Wells, Bowen

Key, Robert
Whitney, Sir Raymond

Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Whittingdale, John

Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Wilshire, David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Lansley, Andrew
Yeo, Tim

Leigh, Edward
Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Letwin, Oliver
Tellers for the Noes:

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Mr. Peter Atkinson and

Lidington, David
Mr. Stephen Day.

Question accordingly agreed to.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): It may be convenient to take motions 3, 4 and 5 together.

Mr. Eric Forth: Certainly not!

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 67) on Heads', Deputies' and Advanced Skills Teachers' Performance Pay Progression and Deputies' Assimilation (HC 569), which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]

The House divided: Ayes 337, Noes 115.

Division No. 285]
[4.37 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Ainger, Nick
Campbell-Savours, Dale

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cann, Jamie

Allan, Richard
Caplin, Ivor

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Casale, Roger

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Caton, Martin

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Cawsey, Ian

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Ashton, Joe
Chaytor, David

Atherton, Ms Candy
Chisholm, Malcolm

Atkins, Charlotte
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Austin, John
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Baker, Norman


Ballard, Jackie
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Banks, Tony
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Bames, Harry
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Barron, Kevin v
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Beard, Nigel
Clelland, David

Begg, Miss Anne
Clwyd, Ann

Beth, Rt Hon A J
Coaker, Vernon

Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Cohen, Harry

Bell. Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Coleman, Iain

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Connarty, Michael

Bennett, Andrew F
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Benton, Joe
Corbett, Robin

Berry, Roger
Corbyn, Jeremy

Best, Harold
Cotter, Brian

Betts, Clive
Cousins, Jim

Blackman, Liz
Cranston, Ross

Blears, Ms Hazel
Crausby, David

Blizzard, Bob
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cummings, John

Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Darvill, Keith

Bradshaw, Ben
Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Brake, Tom
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Brand, Dr Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Breed, Colin
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davis, Rt Hon Terry(B'ham Hodge H)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dawson, Hilton

Buck, Ms Karen
Dean, Mrs Janet

Burden, Richard
Denham, John

Burgon, Colin
Dismore, Andrew

Burnett, John
Dobbin, Jim

Burstow, Paul
Donohoe, Brian H

Butler, Mrs christine
Doran, Frank

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Dowd, Jim

Cable, Dr Vincent
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)




Edwards, Huw
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Efford, Clive
Kirkwood, Archy

Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kumar, Dr Ashok

Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Fearn, Ronnie
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Fisher, Mark
Lepper, David

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Leslie, Christopher

Flint, Caroline
Levitt, Tom

Flynn, Paul
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Foster, Don (Bath)
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Linton, Martin

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Livsey, Richard

Fyfe, Maria
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Gerrard, Neil
Lock, David

Gidley, Sandra
Love, Andrew

Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McAllion, John

Godman, Dr Norman A
McAvoy, Thomas

Goggins, Paul
McCabe, Steve

Gorrie, Donald
McCafferty, Ms Chris

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McDonagh, Siobhain

Grocott, Bruce
Macdonald, Calum

Grogan, John
McDonnell, John

Hain, Peter
McIsaac, Shona

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mackinlay, Andrew

Hanson, David
McNamara, Kevin

Harris, Dr Evan
McNulty, Tony

Harvey, Nick
MacShane, Denis

Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mactaggart, Fiona

Healey, John
McWalter, Tony

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mahon, Mrs Alice

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mallaber, Judy

Hepburn, Stephen
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Heppell, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hill, Keith
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hinchtffe, David
Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hodge, Ms Margaret
Martlew, Eric

Home Robertson, John
Maxton, John

Hope, Phil
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Hopkins, Kelvin
Merron, Gillian

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moffatt, Laura

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Moore, Michael

Humble, Mrs Joan
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Hurst, Alan
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Hutton, John
Morley, Elliot

Iddon, Dr Brian
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Illsley, Eric


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Jenkins, Brian
Mountford, Kali

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mudie, George


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Naysmith, Dr Doug

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Norris, Dan

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Oaten, Mark

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


O'Hara, Eddie

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Olner, Bill

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Öpik, Lembit

Jones, Marlyn (Clwyd S)
Organ, Mrs Diana

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Osborne, Ms Sandra

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Palmer, Dr Nick

Keeble, Ms Sally
Pearson, Ian

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pendry, Tom

Kelly, Ms Ruth
Perham, Ms Linda

Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Pickthall, Colin


Pike, Peter L

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Plaskitt, James

Khabra, Piara S
Pond, Chris

Kidney, David
Pope, Greg





Pound, Stephen
Sutcliffe, Gerry

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Prosser, Gwyn


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Quinn, Lawrie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Rapson, Syd
Temple-Morris, Peter

Raynsford, Nick
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Timms, Stephen

Rendel, David
Tipping, Paddy

Roche, Mrs Barbara
Todd, Mark

Rogers, Allan
Tonge, Dr Jenny

Rooney, Terry
Touhig, Don

Rowlands, Ted
Trickett, Jon

Roy, Frank
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Ruane, Chris
Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Ruddock, Joan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Tyler, Paul

Salter, Martin
Tynan, Bill

Sanders, Adrian
Vis, Dr Rudi

Savidge, Malcolm
Wallace, James

Sawford, Phil
Walley, Ms Joan

Sedgemore, Brian
Ward, Ms Claire

Shaw, Jonathan
Wareing, Robert N

Sheerman, Barry
Watts, David

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Webb, Steve

Shipley, Ms Debra
Welsh, Andrew

Skinner, Dennis
White, Brian

Smith. Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Whitehead, Dr Alan

Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Willis, Phil

Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wills, Michael

Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wilson, Brian

Soley, Clive
Winnick, David

Southworth, Ms Helen
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Spellar, John
Wood, Mike

Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Woodward, Shaun

Stevenson, George
Woolas, Phil

Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Worthington, Tony

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wray, James

Stinchcombe, Paul
Wyatt, Derek

Stoate, Dr Howard


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Tellers for the Ayes:

Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Mr. David Jamieson and

Stringer, Graham
Mr. Mike Hall.



NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Amess, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bercow, John
Fox, Dr Liam

Beresford, Sir Paul
Fraser, Christopher

Brazier, Julian
Gale, Roger

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Garnier, Edward

Browning, Mrs Angela
Gill, Christopher

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gray, James

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Green, Damian


Grieve, Dominic

Clappison, James
Gummer, Rt Hon John

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hammond, Philip

Collins, Tim
Hawkins, Nick

Gran, James
Hayes, John

Curry, Rt Hon David
Heald, Oliver

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Horam, John

Duncan Smith, Iain
Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Evans, Nigel
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Faber, David
Jenkin, Bernard

Fabricant, Michael
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffery

Fallon, Michael





Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Key, Robert
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Ruffley, David

Laing, Mrs Eleanor
St Aubyn, Nick

Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sayeed, Jonathan

Lansley, Andrew
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Leigh, Edward
Shepherd, Richard

Letwin, Oliver
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Soames, Nicholas

Lidington, David
Spring, Richard

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Steen, Anthony

Loughton, Tim
Streeter, Gary

Luff, Peter
Swayne, Desmond

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Syms, Robert

McIntosh, Miss Anne
Tapsell, Sir Peter

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Maclean, Rt Hon David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)

McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy

Madel, Sir David
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Matins, Humfrey
Townend, John

Maples, John
Trend, Michael

Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Tyrie, Andrew

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Viggers, Peter

May, Mrs Theresa
Waterson, Nigel

Nicholls, Patrick
Wells, Bowen

Norman, Archie
Whitney, Sir Raymond

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Whittingdale, John

Ottaway, Richard
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Paterson, Owen
Wilshire, David

Pickles, Eric
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Prior, David
Yeo, Tim

Randall, John
Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:

Robathan, Andrew
Mr. Stephen Day and

Robertson, Laurence
Mr. Peter Atkinson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 68) on the 2000/2001 Special Grant for Kosovan Evacuees (HC 636), which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]

The House divided: Ayes 351, Noes 113.

Division No. 286]
[5.6 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Ainger, Nick
Bennett, Andrew F

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Benton, Joe

Allan, Richard
Berry, Roger

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Best, Harold

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Betts, Clive

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Blackman, Liz

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Blears, Ms Hazel

Ashton, Joe
Blizzard, Bob

Atherton, Ms Candy
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Atkins, Charlotte
Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Austin, John
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Baker, Norman
Bradshaw, Ben

Ballard, Jackie
Brake, Tom

Banks, Tony
Brand, Dr Peter

Bames, Harry
Breed, Colin

Barron, Kevin
Brinton, Mrs Helen

Beard, Nigel
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Begg, Miss Anne
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Beith, Rt Hon A J
Buck, Ms Karen

Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Burden, Richard

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Burgon, Colin





Burnett, John
Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Burstow, Paul
Godman, Dr Norman A

Butler, Mrs Christine
Goggins, Paul

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Gorrie, Donald

Cable, Dr Vincent
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth, V)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Campbell-Savours, Dale
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Cann, Jamie
Grocott, Bruce

Caplin, Ivor
Grogan, John

Casale, Roger
Hain, Peter

Caton, Martin
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Cawsey, Ian
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Chaytor, David
Hanson, David

Chisholm, Malcolm
Harris, Dr Evan

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Harvey, Nick

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Healey, John

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Heath, David (Somerton & Rome)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hepburn, Stephen

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Heppell, John

Coaker, Vernon
Hill, Keith

Cohen, Harry
Hinchliffe, David

Coleman, Iain
Hodge, Ms Margaret

Connarty, Michael
Home Robertson, John

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hope, Phil

Corbett, Robin
Hopkins, Kelvin

Corbyn, Jeremy
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Corston, Jean
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cotter, Brian
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Crausby, David
Humble, Mrs Joan

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hurst, Alan

Cummings, John
Hutton, John

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Illsley, Eric

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Brian

Darvill, Keith
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)

Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)

Dean, Mrs Janet


Denham, John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Donohoe, Brian H
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Doran, Frank
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dowd, Jim
Keeble, Ms Sally

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kelly, Ms Ruth

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Edwards, Huw


Efford, Clive
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Ellman, Mrs Louise
Khabra, Piara S

Ennis, Jeff
Kidney, David

Ewing, Mrs Margaret
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Fearn, Ronnie
Kirkwood, Archy

Fisher, Mark
Kumar, Dr Ashok

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Ladyman, Dr Stephenson

Flint, Caroline
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Flynn, Paul
Lepper, David

Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Leslie, Christopher

Foster, Don (Bath)
Levitt, Tom

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Fyfe, Maria
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Gerrard, Neil
Linton, Martin

Gidley, Sandra
Livsey, Richard




Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lock, David
Rogers, Allan

Love, Andrew
Rooney, Terry

McAllion, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McAvoy, Thomas
Rowlands, Ted

McCabe, Steve
Roy, Frank

McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ruane, Chris

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Ruddock, Joan


Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McDonagh, Siobhain
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Macdonald, Calum
Salter, Martin

McDonnell, John
Sanders, Adrian

McGuire, Mrs Anne
Savidge, Malcolm

McIsaac, Shona
Sawford, Phil

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sedgemore, Brian

Mackinlay, Andrew
Shaw, Jonathan

McNamara, Kevin
Sheerman, Barry

McNulty, Tony
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

MacShane, Denis
Shipley, Ms Debra

Mactaggart, Fiona
Skinner, Dennis

McWatter, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Martlew, Eric
Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

Maxton, John
Snape, Peter

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Soley, Clive

Merron, Gillian
Southworth, Ms Helen

Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Spellar, John

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Stevenson, George

Moffatt, Laura
Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Moore, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Moran, Ms Margaret
Stinchcombe, Paul

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Stoate, Dr Howard

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Morley, Elliot
Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stringer, Graham


Sutcliffe, Gerry

Morris Rt Hon Sir Jhon (Aberavon)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mountford, Kali
Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)

Mudie, George
Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Naysmith, Dr Doug
Temple-Morris, Peter

Norris, Dan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Oaten, Mark
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

O'Hara, Eddie
Timms, Stephen

Olner, Bill
Tipping, Paddy

Öpik, Lembit
Todd, Mark

Organ, Mrs Diana
Tonge, Dr Jenny

Osborne, Ms Sandra
Touhig, Don

Palmer, Dr Nick
Trickett, Jon

Pearson, Ian
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Pendry, Tom
Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Perham, Ms Linda
Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Pickthall, Cohn
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Pike, Peter L
Tyler, Paul

Plaskitt, James
Tynan, Bill

Pond, Chris
Vis, Dr Rudi

Pope, Greg
Wallace, James

Pound, Stephen
Walley, Ms Joan

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Ward, Ms Claire

Prosser, Gwyn
Wareing, Robert N

Purchase, Ken
Watts, David

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Webb, Steve

Quinn, Lawrie
Welsh, Andrew

Rapson, Syd
White, Brian

Raynsford, Nick
Whitehead, Dr Alan

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Rendel, David






Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Woolas, Phil

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Worthington, Tony

Willis, Phil
Wray, James

Wills, Michael
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Wilson, Brian
Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Winnick, David
Wyatt, Derek

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Tellers for the Ayes:

Wood, Mike
Mr. David Clelland and

Woodward, Shaun
Mr. David Jamieson.



NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Lidington, David

Amess, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Beggs, Roy
Loughton, Tim

Bercow, John
Luff, peter

Beresford, Sir Paul
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
McIntosh, Miss Anne

Brazier, Julian
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David

Browning, Mrs Angela
McLoughlin, Patrick

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Madel, Sir David

Butterfill, John
Malins, Humfrey

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Maples, John


Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Clappison, James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
May, Mrs Theresa

Collins. Tim
Nicholls, Patrick

Cran, James
Norman, Archie

Curry, Rt Hon David
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Ottaway, Richard

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Paterson, Owen

Day, Stephen
Pickles, Eric

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Prior, David

Duncan Smith, Iain
Redwood, Rt Hon John

Evans, Nigel
Robathan, Andrew

Faber, David
Robertson, Laurence

Fabricant, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Fallon, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Ruffley, David

Fox, Dr Liam
St Aubyn, Nick

Fraser, Christopher
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Gale, Roger
Shepherd, Richard

Garnier, Edward
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Gill, Christopher
Soames, Nicholas

Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spring, Richard

Gray, James
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Green, Damian
Steen, Anthony

Grieve, Dominic
Streeter, Gary

Gummer, Rt Hon John
Swayne, Desmond

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Syms, Robert

Hammond, Philip
Tapsell, Sir Peter

Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Hayes, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Sir Teddy

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Townend, John

Horam, John
Trend, Michael

Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Tyrie, Andrew

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Viggers, Peter

Jenkin, Bernard
Waterson, Nigel

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Whitney, Sir Raymond

Key, Robert
Whittingdale, John

Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Wilshire, David

Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Yeo, Tim

Lensley, Andrew
Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Leigh, Edward
Tellers for the Noes:

Letwin, Oliver
Mr. John Randall and

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE

That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 65): Invest to Save Grant (HC 707), which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.—[Mr. Pope.]

The House divided: Ayes 353, Noes 112.

Division No. 287]
[5.21 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Rt Hon Torn (Coatbridge)

Allan, Richard
Coaker, Vernon

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Coffey, Ms Ann

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cohen, Harry

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Coleman, Iain

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Connarty, Michael

Ashton, Joe
Corbett, Robin

Atherton, Ms Candy
Corston, Jean

Atkins, Charlotte
Cotter, Brian

Austin, John
Cousins, Jim

Baker, Norman
Cranston, Ross

Ballard, Jackie
Crausby, David

Banks, Tony
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Barnes, Harry
Cummings, John

Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Beard, Nigel


Begg, Miss Anne
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Beith, Rt Hon A J
Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Dalyell, Tam

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Darvill, Keith

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Bennett, Andrew F
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Benton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Berry, Roger
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Best, Harold
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Betts. Clive


Blackman, Liz
Dawson, Hilton

Blears, Ms Hazel
Dean, Mrs Janet

Blizzard. Bob
Dismore, Andrew

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dobbin, Jim

Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Donohoe, Brian H

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Doran, Frank

Brake, Tom
Dowd, Jim

Brand, Dr Peter
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Breed, Colin
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Brinton, Mrs Helen
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Edwards, Huw

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Efford, Clive

Buck, Ms Karen
Ellman, Mrs Louise

Burden, Richard
Ennis, Jeff

Burgon, Colin
Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Burnett, John
Fearn, Ronnie

Burstow, Paul
Fisher, Mark

Butler, Mrs Christine
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Flint, Caroline

Cable, Dr Vincent
Flynn, Paul

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Foster, Don (Bath)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Cann, Jamie
Fyfe, Maria

Caplin, Ivor
George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Casale, Roger
Gerrard, Neil

Caton, Martin
Gibson, Dr Ian

Cawsey, Ian
Gidley, Sandra

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Chaytor, David
Godman, Dr Norman A

Chisholm, Malcolm
Goggins, Paul

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gorrie, Donald

Clark. Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)





Grocott, Bruce
McGuire, Mrs Anne

Grogan, John
McIsaac, Shona

Hain, Peter
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mackinlay, Andrew

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McNamara, Kevin

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McNulty, Tony

Hanson, David
MacShane, Denis

Harris, Dr Evan
Mactaggart, Fiona

Harvey, Nick
McWalter, Tony

Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mahon, Mrs Alice

Healey, John
Mallaber, Judy

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Heppe John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hepburn, Stephen
Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hill, Keith
Martlew, Eric

Hinchliffe, David
Maxton, John

Hodge, Ms Margaret
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Home Robertson. John
Meale, Alan

Hopkins, Kelvin
Merron, Gillian

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Moffatt, Laura

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Moore, Michael

Humble, Mrs Joan
Moran, Ms Margaret

Hurst, Alan
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Hutton, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Iddon, Dr Brian
Morley, Elliot

Illsley, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Monis, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Jenkins, Brian


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Mountford, Kali

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mudie, George


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Naysmith, Dr Doug

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Norris, Dan

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Oaten, Mark

Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
O'Hara, Eddie


Olner, Bill

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Öpik, Lembit

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Organ, Mrs Diana

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Osborne, Ms Sandra

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Palmer, Dr Nick

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pearson, Ian

Keeble, Ms Sally
Pendry, Tom

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Perham, Ms Linda

Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pickthall, Colin

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pike, Peter L

Khabra, Piara S
Plaskitt, James

Kidney, David
Pond, Chris

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pope, Greg

Kirkwood, Archy
Pound, Stephen

Kumar, Dr Ashok
Powell, Sir Raymond

Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Prescott, Rt Hon John

Lepper, David
Prosser, Gwyn

Leslie, Christopher
Purchase, Ken

Levitt, Tom
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Quinn, Lawrie

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rapson, Syd

Linton, Martin
Raynsford, Nick

Livsey, Richard
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Lock, David
Rendel, David

Love, Andrew
Roche, Mrs Barbara

McAllion, John
Rogers, Allan

McAvoy, Thomas
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

McCabe, Steve
Rooney, Terry

McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McDonagh, Siobhain
Rowlands, Ted

Macdonald, Calum
Roy, Frank

McDonnell, John
Ruane, Chris




Ruddock, Joan
Timms, Stephen

Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tipping, Paddy

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Todd, Mark

Salter, Martin
Tonge, Dr Jenny

Sanders, Adrian
Touhig, Don

Savidge, Malcolm
Trickett, Jon

Sawford, Phil
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Sedgemore, Brian
Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Shaw, Jonathan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Sheerman, Barry
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Tyler, Paul

Shipley, Ms Debra
Tynan, Bill

Skinner, Dennis
Vis, Dr Rudi

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wallace, James

Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Walley, Ms Joan

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Ward, Ms Claire

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Wareing, Robert N


Watts, David

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Webb, Steve

Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Welsh, Andrew

Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
White, Brian

Snape, Peter
Whitehead, Dr Alan

Soley, Clive
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Southworth, Ms Helen
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Spellar, John


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Stevenson, George
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Willis, Phil

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wills, Michael

Stinchcombe, Paul
Wilson, Brian

Stoate, Dr Howard
Winnick, David

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wood, Mike

Stringer, Graham
Woodward, Shaun

Sutcliffe, Gerry
Woolas, Phil

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Worthington, Tony


Wray, James

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wyatt, Derek

Temple-Morris, Peter


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Tellers for the Ayes:

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Mr. David Clelland and

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Mr. David Jamieson.



NOES

Amess, David
Gale, Roger

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Garnier, Edward

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gill, Christopher

Beggs, Roy
Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Bercow, John
Gray, James

Beresford, Sir Paul
Green, Damian

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Grieve, Dominic

Brazier, Julian
Gummer, Rt Hon John

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Browning, Mrs Angela
Hammond, Philip

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hawkins, Nick

Butterfill, John
Hayes, John

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Heald, Oliver


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Clappison, James
Horam, John

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Collins, Tim
Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Gran, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Curry, Rt Hon David
Jenkin, Bernard

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Day, Stephen


Duncan Smith, Iain
Key, Robert

Evans, Nigel
Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Faber, David
Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Fabricant, Michael
Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Fallon, Michael
Lansley, Andrew

Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Leigh, Edward

Fowler, At Hon Sir Norman
Letwin, Oliver

Fox, Dr Liam
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Fraser, Christopher
Lidington, David





Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Shepherd, Richard

Loughton, Tim
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Luff, Peter
Soames, Nicholas

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Sir Michael

McIntosh, Miss Anne
Spring, Richard

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Maclean, Rt Hon David
Steen, Anthony

McLoughlin, Patrick
Streeter, Gary

Malins, Humfrey
Swayne, Desmond

Maples, John
Syms, Robert

Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

May, Mrs Theresa
Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Sir Teddy

Norman, Archie
Townend, John

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Trend, Michael

Ottaway, Richard
Tyrie, Andrew

Paterson, Owen
Viggers, Peter

Pickles, Eric
Waterson, Nigel

Prior, David
Wells, Bowen

Redwood, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Sir Raymond

Robathan, Andrew
Wilshire, David

Robertson, Laurence
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Yeo, Tim

Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Tellers for the Noes:

Ruffley, David
Mr. GeoffreyClifton-Brown

St Aubyn, Nick
and

Sayeed, Jonathan
Mr. John Randall.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DATA PROTECTION

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

That in respect of service from 1st April 2000, the Data Protection Commissioner shall be paid a salary of £68,212 per annum.—[Mr. Pope.]

The House divided: Ayes 351, Noes 113.

Division No. 288]
[5.34 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Blackman, Liz

Ainger, Nick
Blears, Ms Hazel

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blizzard, Bob

Allan, Richard
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bradshaw, Ben

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Brake, Tom

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brand, Dr Peter

Ashton, Joe
Breed, Colin

Atherton, Ms Candy
Brinton, Mrs Helen

Atkins, Charlotte
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Austin, John
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Baker, Norman
Buck, Ms Karen

Ballard, Jackie
Burden, Richard

Banks, Tony
Burgon, Colin

Bames, Harry
Burnett, John

Barron, Kevin
Burstow, Paul

Beard, Nigel
Butler, Mrs Christine

Begg, Miss Anne
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cable, Dr Vincent

Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Bennett, Andrew F
Campbell-Savours, Dale

Benton, Joe
Cann, Jamie

Berry, Roger
Caplin, Ivor

Best, Harold
Casale, Roger

Betts, Clive
Caton, Martin




Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Grocott, Bruce

Chaytor, David
Grogan, John

Chisholm, Malcolm
Hain, Peter

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Hanson, David

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Harris, Dr Evan

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Harvey, Nick

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Healey, John

Clwyd, Ann
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Coaker, Vernon
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Coffey, Ms Ann
Hepburn, Stephen

Cohen, Harry
Heppell, John

Coleman, Iain
Hill, Keith

Colman, Tony
Hinchliffe, David

Connarty, Michael
Hodge, Ms Margaret

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Home Robertson, John

Corbett, Robin
Hope, Phil

Corbyn, Jeremy
Hopkins, Kelvin

Corston, Jean
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Cotter, Brian
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cousins, Jim
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Cranston, Ross
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Crausby, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Humble, Mrs Joan

Cummings, John
Hurst, Alan

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Hutton, John


Iddon, Dr Brian

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Illsley, Eric

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Dalyell, Tam
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Darvill, Keith
Jamieson, David

Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Jenkins, Brian

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Dawson, Hilton
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys MÔn)

Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Dobbin, Jim


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Doran, Frank
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Dowd, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Keeble, Ms Sally

Edwards, Huw
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Efford, Clive
Keetch, Paul

Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kelly, Ms Ruth

Ennis, Jeff
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Khabra, Piara S

Fearn, Ronnie
Kidney, David

Fisher, Mark
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Kirkwood, Archy

Flint, Caroline
Kumar, Dr Ashok

Flynn, Paul
Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Foster, Don (Bath)
Lepper, David

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Leslie, Christopher

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Levitt, Tom

Fyfe, Maria
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Gerrard, Neil
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Gibson, Dr Ian
Linton, Martin

Gidley, Sandra
Livsey, Richard

Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Godman, Dr Norman A
Love, Andrew

Godsiff, Roger
McAllion, John

Goggins, Paul
McAvoy, Thomas

Gorrie, Donald
McCabe, Steve

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McCafferty, Ms Chris

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McDonagh, Siobhain





Macdonald, Calum
Roy, Frank

McDonnell, John
Ruane, Chris

McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ruddock, Joan

McIsaac, Shona
Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Mackinlay, Andrew
Salter, Martin

McNamara, Kevin
Sanders, Adrian

McNulty, Tony
Savidge, Malcolm

MacShane, Denis
Sawford, Phil

Mactaggart, Fiona
Sedgemore, Brian

McWalter, Tony
Shaw, Jonathan

Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheerman, Barry

Mallaber, Judy
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Shipley, Ms Debra

Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Skinner, Dennis

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Martlew, Eric
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Maxton, John
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Meale, Alan
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Merron, Gillian
Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Snape, Peter

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Soley, Clive

Mitchell, Austin
Southworth, Ms Helen

Moffatt, Laura
Spellar, John

Moonie, Dr Lewis
Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Moore, Michael
Stevenson, George

Moran, Ms Margaret
Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stinchcombe, Paul

Morley, Elliot
Stoate, Dr Howard

Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Stringer, Graham


Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mountford, Kali
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mudie, George


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Norris, Dan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Oaten, Mark
Temple-Morris, Peter

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

O'Hara, Eddie
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Olner, Bill
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Öpik, Lembit
Timms, Stephen

Organ, Mrs Diana
Tipping, Paddy

Osborne, Ms Sandra
Todd, Mark

Palmer, Dr Nick
Tonge, Dr Jenny

Pearson, Ian
Touhig, Don

Perham, Ms Linda
Trickett, Jon

Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Pike, Peter L
Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Plaskitt, James
Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Pond, Chris
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Pope, Greg
Tyler, Paul

Pound, Stephen
Tynan, Bill

Powell, Sir Raymond
Vis, Dr Rudi

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wallace, James

Prosser, Gwyn
Walley, Ms Joan

Purchase, Ken
Ward, Ms Claire

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Wareing, Robert N

Quinn, Lawrie
Watts, David

Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Webb, Steve

Rapson, Syd
Welsh, Andrew

Raynsford, Nick
White, Brian

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Whitehead, Dr Alan

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Rendel, David
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Roche, Mrs Barbara


Rogers, Allan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Rooney, Terry
Willis, Phil

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wills, Michael

Rowlands, Ted
Wilson, Brian




Winnick, David
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Wood, Mike
Wyatt, Derek

Woodward, Shaun


Woolas, Phil
Tellers for the Ayes:

Worthington, Tony
Mr. Mike Hall and

Wray, James
Mr. David Clelland.



NOES

Amess, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Loughton, Tim

Beggs, Roy
Luff, Peter

Bercow, John
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Beresford, Sir Paul
McIntosh, Miss Anne

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Brazier, Julian
Maclean, Rt Hon David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
McLoughlin, Patrick

Browning, Mrs Angela
Malins, Humfrey

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Maples, John

Butterfill, John
Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Cash, William
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
May, Mrs Theresa


Nicholls, Patrick

Clappison, James
Norman, Archie

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Ottaway, Richard

Collins, Tim
Paterson, Owen

Cran, James
Pickles, Eric

Curry, Rt Hon David
Prior, David

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Randall, John

Duncan Smith, Iain
Redwood, Rt Hon John

Evans, Nigel
Robathan, Andrew

Faber, David
Robertson, Laurence

Fabricant, Michael
Roe, Mrs Marlon (Broxbourne)

Fallon, Michael
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Ruffley, David

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
St Aubyn, Nick

Fox, Dr Liam
Sayeed, Jonathan

Fraser, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard

Gale, Roger
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Garnier, Edward
Soames, Nicholas

Gill, Christopher
Spicer, Sir Michael

Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spring, Richard

Gray, James
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Green, Damian
Steen, Anthony

Grieve, Dominic
Streeter, Gary

Gummer, Rt Hon John
Swayne, Desmond

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Syms, Robert

Hammond, Philip
Tapsell, Sir Peter

Hawkins, Nick
Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

Hayes, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Heald, Oliver
Taylor, Sir Teddy

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Townend, John

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Trend, Michael

Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Tyrie, Andrew

Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Waterson, Nigel

Jenkin, Bernard
Wells, Bowen

Key, Robert
Whitney, Sir Raymond

Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Whittingdale, John

Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Wilshire, David

Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Lansley, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Leigh, Edward
Yeo, Tim

Letwin, Oliver


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Tellers for the Noes:

Lidington, David
Mr. Peter Atkinson and

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Stephen Day.

Question accordingly agreed to

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before we come to motion No. 7, I have a statement from Madam Speaker. I should inform the House that the Leader of the Opposition has tabled a manuscript amendment to the allocation of time


motion which the Speaker has selected for debate. The effect of the amendment would be to increase the total time available for debate on the allocation of time motion and the Bill from five to eight hours. Copies of the amendment are available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you read The Guardian, and you will have seen in that paper today the report that on 7 March in the House, at column 886 of Hansard, the Home Secretary said that the Bill that we are about to discuss enjoyed the full support of the noble Lord Bingham, then the Lord Chief Justice. That appears not to have been the case, in that the Home Secretary was in possession of a letter that made it plain that the noble Lord had grave anxieties about the Bill. I am not for a moment suggesting that the Home Secretary has deliberately misled the House; I am sure that it was a misunderstanding—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been misinformed; I do not read The Guardian. The other matter is one for debate. He has been in the House a long time—he entered it at the same time as me—so perhaps he can find another way of raising the matter.

Mr. Hogg: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is not a matter of debate. I was about to ask whether you have some power. Incidentally, welcome to the readership of The Daily Telegraph. Is it possible for you to ensure that we have copies of the correspondence in the Library before we debate the timetable or the next stage of the Bill?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a matter for me to make available that correspondence.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you or the Speaker have had notice from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment that he wishes to make a statement on the spending review. I am sure that all hon. Members know that that was the highlight of the spending review. We therefore confidently expected that he would want to make a statement, on which we could question him. However, it would appear—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House should let the Deputy Speaker be the Deputy Speaker; I will chair proceedings. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman is not a matter for the Chair. I have had no such notice—nor, indeed, has Madam Speaker.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).I am happy to have copies of the correspondence placed in the Vote Office and on the Table.

Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2)Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill—

Timetable

1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

Questions to be put

2.—(l) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on the Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the following Questions (but no others)—

(a)any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b)any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c)the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d)any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

Miscellaneous

3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply at today's sitting to proceedings to which this Order applies.

4. Proceeding to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.

6. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

7.—(1) This paragraph applies if—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No.24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock; and
(b) proceedings on this Motion have begun before then.

(2) The bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time, shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

8.Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to the Bill.

Supplemental orders

9.The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this


Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

10.If at today's sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended. before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

As hon. Members will recognise from the normal form of this allocation of time motion, it proposes that there should be a total, including debate on the guillotine itself, of five hours of debate on Report and Third Reading of this short but important Bill.

Guillotines are used by Governments of both parties. They are a regrettable necessity, but sometimes inevitable. Their use depends on the degree of contention of the Bill and whether agreement with the Opposition can be sought. It must however be added—history shows this to be so—that although Conservative Governments have certainly until now always enjoyed an in-built majority in the other place, a Labour Government, whatever their majority in this elected House, have never done so. The consequence, as statistics show, is that the number of occasions on which Government business is defeated in the other place is always much higher than it is here. Indeed, these proceedings would not be necessary had the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 1) Bill been allowed to proceed to this elected House, for us to debate it in the proper way.

Mr. Edward Garnier: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman in due course.
I said a moment ago that the criterion for determining whether Bills should be the subject of guillotine motions used to be almost exclusively contention. This is a contentious Bill—I am the first to concede that—but it must be accepted that, these days, the Opposition are so disorganised that they cannot even deliver on Bills that have the full support of the Opposition Front-Bench team.
The very best example that I can quote, of a huge number, is the Disqualifications Bill, which was before the House in late January. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said that she would give the Bill a fair passage. So chaotic were the Opposition's tactics that, far from doing so, they talked the Bill through on the Monday night, the Tuesday night and on the Wednesday, thereby shooting their feet off in ensuring that Prime Minister's Question Time and, I understand, Opposition Days and other business that they wanted could not proceed.
We saw the same with the Football (Disorder) Bill, which apparently has the full support of Opposition parties. The Leader of the Opposition said in a speech outside the House that he and his party would support "any moves" to control football hooliganism, yet owing to the inability of the Opposition Front-Bench team to deliver its own Members, we had to introduce a guillotine in this House to get the Bill through.
If any further proof were needed of the incapacity of the Conservative Front-Bench team to ensure that its Members are in order, I draw attention to its extraordinary performance just now in putting up Tellers against a series of orders, which has wasted more than an hour of the

House's time. I cannot believe that Conservative Front Benchers would have voted against those orders had they read them.
For example, the Conservative Front Benchers voted against motion No. 4, concerning the local government finance special grant report in respect of Kosovan evacuees. Had they succeeded in defeating the motion—we shall not let them forget this—Conservative as well as Labour local authorities would have been denied grant aid from central Government in support of Kosovan evacuees. So petty is the Conservatives' approach that they even voted to deny the Data Protection Commissioner a salary, as on the Order Paper.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The Home Secretary has been justifying the guillotine motion on the basis of the Opposition's tactics. He is of course aware of the reasoned amendment to Third Reading that has been signed by 18 of his Back Benchers. Perhaps the truth is that the guillotine motion is to prevent his Back Benchers from articulating their opposition to the Bill.

Mr. Straw: That is utter nonsense. The debate will show that there is no suggestion or possibility that those who take a different view on this issue, whether on the right hon. and learned Gentleman's side of the House or mine, should not express their point of view.
What makes most synthetic the Opposition's demand for more time is the fact that they could not find sufficient matters to debate in Standing Committee.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: rose—

Mr. Straw: I make an honourable exception of the hon. Gentleman. This great issue that the Opposition have raised could take up only four Committee sittings, and the Bill reported by agreement without ever a closure motion being moved. So the idea that there is now insufficient time to debate the issue—we have five hours altogether—is frankly fanciful.

Mr. Malins: The Home Secretary will be aware that there are four groups of amendments and that each is led by one that I have tabled. What evidence does he have that I would choose to filibuster, knowing as he does that all I have ever sought is to debate briefly and to the point? What does he have to say against me?

Mr. Straw: I made an honourable exception of the hon. Gentleman, in respect of whom I have no such evidence. However, I need only look at Hansard for 24 to 26 January to find evidence of the capacity of others among his erstwhile hon. Friends—including the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who smilingly pleads guilty to the charge—to filibuster even matters that Opposition Front Benchers support.

Mr. Edward Leigh: I was a member of the Standing Committee. I cannot understand why the Home Secretary, with one breath, asserts that we will filibuster, but, with the next, says that those who were members of the Standing Committee were prepared to engage in serious debates, in which the former Attorney-General and others spoke, without filibustering. How can


the Home Secretary justify—to his hon. Friends, if not to us—restricting to an hour and three quarters debate on a matter as important as abolishing jury trial?

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman makes my point that there has already been adequate discussion as far as the Opposition are concerned. However, having read the report of the Standing Committee, I know that he almost reached the point at which he agreed with the terms of the Bill. I am glad to know that he was persuaded by the eloquence of the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke).
The hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) makes my second point for me by pointing out that, although there are four groups of amendments to the Bill, encompassing 14 amendments selected by Madam Speaker, not one of the lead amendments has been tabled by the official Opposition Front-Bench team. There has never been such an incompetent Opposition—they are incompetent even by their own standards. We have moved the timetable motion because we know of the capacity of the current Opposition to attempt to talk out even measures with which they agree. They are complaining that there is insufficient time, so we should attempt to deal with the guillotine motion as quickly as possible so that we can get on to the amendments and Third Reading.
The Bill is not about abolishing the right to a jury trial, and I am flattered that the Opposition feel the need to parody and distort our proposal in order to oppose it. It is about following the practice of every other common law jurisdiction that we can find, which ensures that decisions on which sort of court should try cases should be made judicially by the court, not at the election of individual defendants. I remind the House that such proposals have been the subject of serious discussion for at least seven years. The royal commission report published in 1993 recommended:
We do not think that defendants should be able to choose their court of trial solely on the basis that they think they will get a fairer hearing at one level or another. Nor in our view should defendants be entitled to choose the mode of trial which they think will offer them a better chance of acquittal any more than they should be able to choose the judge who they think will offer them the most lenient sentence.
In a landmark speech on 21 July 1999, the Lord Chief Justice said to the judges assembled for the annual Mansion House dinner:
In matters of most momentous criminal concern this right—
that is, the right to jury trial—
must at least in general be preserved, but it would be absurd to grant a right to jury trial in all cases, however trivial, and those who here in the City drafted the terms of Magna Carta would be surprised to find that intention attributed to them. In cases triable either summarily or by judge and jury I would at present in this country be very reluctant to accord the prosecutor an absolute right to choose the mode of trial, as is done in Scotland.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I hope that this is a point of order.

Mr. Swayne: It is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary's remarks are all very interesting, but what do they have to do with the timetable motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I knew that the hon. Gentleman did not have a point of order for me. The Home Secretary is in order.

Mr. Straw: I shall bring my remarks to a close as soon as I am able to do so. My point is that the matter has been the subject of considerable discussion both inside and outside Parliament for some time.
The Lord Chief Justice continued:
But equally it seems to me objectionable to accord such an absolute right to the defendant, on whose list of priorities the reaching of a just and expeditious decision may not rank very highly. This is a judicial decision properly to be made by the magistrates court on consideration of all the relevant circumstances, but I think it vital, as the Government has happily accepted, that such decisions should be susceptible to immediate challenge to a Crown court judge to ensure that such questions are carefully and objectively considered with due regard to the perceptions of those who may regard themselves as vulnerable, and to provide redress against the occasional aberrant decision, should such be made.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, when the Lord Chief Justice made those remarks, he was speaking in favour of the No. 1 Bill, not the current Bill; that when he talked about magistrates properly taking the decision, he knew perfectly well that there had been put into the No. 1 Bill the reputation clause, which ensured that magistrates would have to take into account matters of reputation and livelihood; and that that clause does not appear in the No. 2 Bill? That is what the Lord Chief Justice was talking about and, since he made those remarks, he has made it manifestly clear that he has serious concerns about the new Bill. In the circumstances, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is entirely inappropriate for him to pray in aid the Lord Chief Justice?

Mr. Straw: My hon. and learned Friend is wrong in every particular. The Lord Chief Justice was speaking at this time last year, some months before the No. I Bill was published, and he was talking at large about the general principle of whether or not mode of trial in either—way cases should be determined judicially or by the defendant.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I will not give way. The one point of principle that the Lord Chief Justice—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have hon. Members shouting across the Floor of the House. The Home Secretary is entitled to a hearing and he must be heard.

Mr. Straw: The one point of principle that the Lord Chief Justice, entirely properly, raised in discussions with me before the publication of the No. 1 Bill, to which he referred in his speech on the Second Reading of that Bill late last year—five months after making his speech at Mansion House—was whether or not, in contrast to the royal commission's recommendation, the mode of trial should be simply for decision by magistrates without any right of appeal, or whether there should be a right of appeal. We agreed between us that there should be a right of appeal to an experienced Crown court judge against a decision to refuse to transfer jurisdiction to the Crown court, and that provision was put into the No. 1 Bill.

Several hon.: Members rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way shortly, but I want to answer my hon. and learned Friend the Member for


Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) first. I have put the correspondence between the Lord Chief Justice and myself before the House, or at least it will be available very shortly.
My hon. and learned Friend's claims are both inappropriate and disingenuous. There was indeed discussion between the Lord Chief Justice at the time and myself about changes that we proposed should be made in the No. 2 Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have always said that our reason for making those changes was to achieve a balance. We made them because of concerns expressed in the other place about the No. 1 Bill and on Commons Second Reading of the No. 2 Bill that the inclusion of criteria relating to reputation could lead to two-tier justice.
I shall give an example of the sort of representations that were made on Second Reading. It was said that
the reputation clause is repellent because it creates a two-tier system. We have all argued against that and everyone on the Government Back Benches would make common cause on that.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 920.]
Who said that? None other than my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway. We changed the No. 1 Bill criteria to the No. 2 Bill criteria because of representations made to us, including those of my hon. and learned Friend. I will not accept any of the suggestions that he has made outside the House, which are disingenuous and without any foundation, about whether I was forthcoming to the House when I spoke to it.
I shall deal with the exchange of correspondence with the Lord Chief Justice. When we were discussing the issue over preceding months, the Lord Chief Justice made it clear to me that he regarded the issue of whether there was a right of appeal as one of principle. That became clear when he spoke on Second Reading of the No.1 Bill in December. However, unlike the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway, he is in favour of the principle of having the mode of trial determined judicially. My hon. and learned Friend must accept that he opposes not only the position in the No. 2 Bill, which I adopt, but the criteria that the Lord Chief Justice supported. He opposes any suggestion that the right to elect jury trial should be transferred to the magistrates, with a right of appeal, rather than being left with the defendant, as it is now.
What happened? I wrote to the Lord Chief Justice on 21 February to explain our thinking, picking up on the representations that had been made. The Lord Chief Justice wrote to me on 22 February to say that many different things might be relevant in answering the question, which is where the matter may be tried. He wrote that
there are dangers in excluding consideration of anything which is relevant in the given case.
Towards the end, he wrote:
I am uneasy at requiring decision makers to ignore matters which reasonable decision makers might wish to take into account.
That was the Lord Chief Justice's position.
I considered in some detail what he had to say and wrote to him on 21 March, providing him with what I

thought was detailed reassurance, as right hon. and hon. Members will see, on the two cases that he had raised. I concluded:
I am very grateful to you for your advice on this. I hope what I say above is reassuring to you. If it is not I would be happy to add this to the agenda of our forthcoming meeting on 6 April, and could ask Parliamentary Counsel to attend as well. Charles Clarke will be listening carefully to the debate in committee to see whether, within our overall purpose, the wording can be improved, and I will consult you if there are amendments we are minded to accept or put down ourselves.
That was the position on 21 March 2000. As it happened, the meeting on 6 April could not take place. I did not receive any further response from the Lord Chief Justice, and on 18 April it was announced that he would become a senior Law Lord on the Judicial Committee and that Lord Woolf would take over from him on 6 June as Lord Chief Justice. There was never the least suggestion that I was not forthcoming on Second Reading. It will be seen also from the correspondence that the matter had not been closed when I spoke in the House. As with so many other issues of exchange between the Home Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice, we were hoping to reach an accommodation on the matter.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: The Home Secretary told the House that the Bill, which does not allow either reputation or general matters to be taken into account, enjoyed the active endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice. Yet we know from what he has told us now that a fortnight earlier he received a letter from the Lord Chief Justice expressing his serious unease. He knows that on 20 January, the Lord Chief Justice, in supporting the No. 1 Bill in Committee, said:
I respectfully think that it is better to give magistrates and circuit judges a wide and almost undirected discretion.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 January 2000; Vol. 608, c. 1254.]
The right hon. Gentleman has done exactly the opposite. Can he explain himself?

Mr. Straw: I shall be delighted to explain myself. I shall do so by reading out the whole of the opening two paragraphs of my speech on Second Reading. I said:
The Bill is part of the Government's programme to modernise the criminal justice system and to improve public confidence in it. Its purpose is to make the system more responsive to the needs of victims, witnesses and the public at large—and defendants.
I then said:
The proposal—
not the Bill—
has been considered extensively in the past seven years.
It is obvious from that that I was talking about the proposal that the mode of trial should be determined not by individual defendants, but by magistrates. I continued:
In 1993. it—
the proposal—
received the unanimous backing of the royal commission on criminal justice. Today, it—
the proposal—
enjoys the active endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, and of the vast majority—[Interruption]—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 886.]
The proposal did and it does. If the only issue between the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire and my hon. and learned Friend the Member


for Medway, and myself is whether we put the reputation clause back into the Bill, we can do business. However, the simple—[Interruption.] That will not apply to my hon. and learned Friend because he opposed the reputation clause. One of the reasons why I was persuaded—

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I will not give way.
I was persuaded very much on balance to omit the clause and to continue to discuss what is essentially a subsidiary matter with the Lord Chief Justice because of what my hon. and learned Friend said in the House.

Mr. Hogg: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: If the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire, the former Attorney-General, and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and something else—I can never remember the name of his constituency, but I am sure that it is a very nice place and that he represents it properly—

Mr. Hogg: It is Sleaford and North Hykeham.

Mr. Straw: If he is saying that all that lies between his position and ours is tweaking the criteria, we can, as I have said, do business.

Mr. Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can make his speech in his own way.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway know that that is not the issue. This is just a synthetic smokescreen.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: No, I will not.
Those who oppose the Bill—[Interruption.] I will finish my remarks in a moment.

Mr. John Redwood: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: With great respect, I will not give way. As I have said, I wish to conclude my remarks.
Those who oppose the Bill root and branch should have the courage to say that they oppose it in whatever form it exists. They should say that they disagree with the fundamental argument that was advanced by the royal commission. The argument about reputation and livelihood was a subsidiary one, as anyone can see. They disagree also with the fundamental argument which was advanced by the Lord Chief Justice, at large, well before either of the Bills was published, on 21 July. That is the issue—

Mr. Redwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: No. I am about to conclude.
That is the issue before us. It is my judgment that there is quite sufficient time to debate the central issue this afternoon. It is a matter of record that the Opposition have been so hopeless that they could not find one constructive amendment to table that Madam Speaker could have chosen as a lead amendment for debate. Moreover, they could not fill the time in Committee for more than four sittings.
The guillotine motion is regrettable, but it is necessary because of the Opposition's failure to organise themselves so that we can do business instead of having endless and unnecessary votes. I recommend the motion to the House.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary suggested that there was something inappropriate in the failure of one of the official Opposition's amendments to be selected first in the group. Can you confirm that the order of amendments selected corresponds to the order of the text of the Bill, as drafted by the Government, and does not reflect any judgment by Madam Speaker on the Opposition amendments selected for debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The selection of amendments is not discussed by the Chair.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for rising to make a second point of order, but the Home Secretary said something rather important: that if the reputation clause were put back, it is possible that he could do business. It may be that the House is approaching a compromise. May I suggest that the proper way forward is to adjourn these proceedings so that the Home Secretary can have consultations with those on the Opposition Front Bench, to see whether a deal is possible?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are considering the guillotine motion, and we are now eating into the time for its consideration. It would be inappropriate for the House to be adjourned or suspended.

Mr. Alun Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it not be entirely inappropriate to adjourn the House in the casual way suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), when the amendment removing the reputation clause meets points made in the other place and concerns expressed that consideration of the matter may be inappropriate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Those are matters for debate. It may be that the right hon. Gentleman can catch my eye and raise such matters.

Mr. Malins: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having heard the Home Secretary say in relation to the reputation clause that we can do business, I seek your guidance. My amendment No. 6 deals precisely with that point, taking into account the circumstances of the accused. Does that mean that I must speak to the amendment later in the debate, or will the Home Secretary accept it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What the Home Secretary said was a matter for debate. It is up to the hon. Gentleman and others to make their case and, perhaps, to ask the Home Secretary for certain assurances.

Mr. Edward Garnier: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, in paragraph 1, leave out "five" and insert "eight".
The past half hour or more has demonstrated that the Government have no idea what they are doing with the Bill or the timetable motion. A number of arguments—I use the term advisedly—were advanced by the Home Secretary in support of his timetable motion.
First, the right hon. Gentleman said that the defeat of the Bill in the other place was the reason for the timetable motion today. The first Bill never got to this House. It started in the other place and was defeated there, and the timetabling arrangements in this House for this second Bill have nothing whatever to do with the progress of a Bill in another place. If the Government cannot get their act together in another place, that is their look-out. If they must rely on a guillotine in the last week of the parliamentary year to get this Bill through, that also is entirely their own fault.
The second point to which the Home Secretary clung was that the Disqualifications Bill had been stopped in the Lords. Again, so what? I understand that the Disqualifications Bill has not been stopped. It is in the House of Lords and, if the Government want it to do so, it will go through the normal debating procedures. If they do not wish the Bill to be discussed in the other place, as appears to be the case, that is presumably why they have not brought it before a Committee or the full House in the other place. Again, that has nothing to do with the progress of the present Bill in this House.
Slipping a little further off his life raft, the Home Secretary attempted to argue that support for the Football (Disorder) Bill had been given unequivocally by the Leader of the Opposition. My right hon. Friend gave no such thing. He was speaking in principle about football hooliganism and how we all agree, on both sides of the House, that we do not approve of it. He said that if a Bill were produced which met our approval, it would receive our approval. The Leader of the Opposition in no way gave the Home Secretary or that shambles on the Government Benches a blank cheque.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Is it not also the case that the Football (Disorder) Bill contained a series of flaws which were contrary to the European convention and required putting right, and that we tabled amendments to put the Bill right which the Home Secretary accepted?

Mr. Garnier: Yes. I do not attack the Home Secretary for being wholly unreasonable all the time. He sensibly took the advice of my right hon. and learned Friend during the remaining stages of that Bill in this House. However, the right hon. Gentleman cannot blame the Leader of the Opposition for the problem that the Government face with this Bill in the last week of the parliamentary year.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. and learned Friend will have noticed both that the Home Secretary would not give way to me, and his strange argument that the timetable motion was necessary for this Bill, although there are three Bills on the Order Paper. The timetable motion applies only to the Bill that is opposed by

Government Back Benchers. The other two Bills have no allocation of time motion. It is thus completely spurious to blame the Opposition for delaying matters.

Mr. Garnier: I do not always know whether the Home Secretary is waving or simply drowning. He is in enough trouble without having to take interventions from my hon. Friend.
The Home Secretary finally lost sight of the horizon when he tried to rely on the Lord Chief Justice. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) has done the House and the debate on the Bill a great service by drawing to the attention of the public the correspondence which has, at this late stage, been provided to us by the Home Secretary. It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not feel it appropriate to give us copies of the correspondence rather earlier in the day.
A close look at the correspondence demonstrates that the interpretation that the Home Secretary now wants to place on it does not accord with the thrust of the text. I dare say that the hon. and learned Member for Medway will draw our attention in some detail, in this debate or after the guillotine debate, to some of the more salient points in it.
The Lord Chief Justice does not support the Bill. The Home Secretary said at column 886 on 7 March:
Today, it enjoys the active endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham.
When he seeks to persuade us that that referred to the proposal, he does himself less than justice. If one reads the entire paragraph, one can see quite clearly that the sense that the Home Secretary attempted to give to the endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice was intended to give the House the impression that the noble and learned Lord supported the Bill.
The entire paragraph states:
Today, it enjoys the active endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, and of the vast majority of the High Court Bench of nearly 100 senior judges; of the Magistrates Association, representing 30,000 justices of the peace; and of all three police associations, representing more than 125,000 police officers, each of whom has to deal every day with the victims of crime and its perpetrators and who know that justice is not served, either for victim or defendant, by an antiquated and time—wasting procedure, which the Bill seeks to remedy.—[Official Report, 17 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 886]
The paragraph was getting towards persuading the House on Second Reading that the Lord Chief Justice gave his unreserved and unequivocal support to the No. 2 Bill. We all know—and if we did not already know, the correspondence demonstrates—that the Home Secretary did not have the support that he thought he could persuade us he did have from the Lord Chief Justice.
We also happen to know that the Home Secretary is keen on the Bill for reasons quite other than those given to the House on that occasion or on this. On 26 February 1997, at a criminal justice system planning event held in St Martins lane in London, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I was not sure for a long time but I have finally decided to remove the right of election for jury trial in either way cases and the reason is that I do not want defendants choosing jury trial to argue Human Rights Act points after the Act comes into force in October.

Mr. John Bercow: Although appendix 4 to the 1997 criminal statistics for England and Wales is helpful, is my hon. and learned Friend aware that


there are currently no readily available lists of offences triable summarily and triable either way; and is it not important that there should be adequate time in this debate for it to be explained to the House why that is so?

Mr. Garnier: I am sure that I can, if given a moment or two, provide my hon. Friend, who I know takes a huge interest in criminal justice, with a list of those offences which fall into the categories that he mentions. The Home Secretary probably has one in his back pocket. But if I may, I shall now come on to the arguments against this rather base motion.
The Opposition's amendment substitutes the word "eight" for "five" in paragraph 1, but even that is inadequate for the discussions that we should be having on the Bill. However, given the Home Secretary's approach to the guillotine motion, we shall have only one and three quarter hours to discuss the Bill's substance, if that. I hope that the other place will take that into account when it comes to consider it.

Mr. Leigh: The key amendment is No. 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), which it is possible will not be reached. The Home Secretary said earlier that I was a member of the Committee and came close to supporting the Bill, but I will support it only if the point about reputation is dealt with. How does my hon. Friend think that we can proceed on that matter? Is he prepared to have discussions with the Government? This is a serious matter and we must find a way to debate properly the issue of the defendant's reputation being considered by the magistrates.

Mr. Garnier: If the Home Secretary is genuine in his intentions towards the Bill and in his claim to be putting a respectable Bill on the statute book, it is up to him to make the advances. This is his Bill, his Government, and his Government's time in which we are debating the Bill, and it is up to him and his team to ensure that the appropriate moves are made. I cannot negotiate with him across the Dispatch Box.

Dr. Nick Palmer: It appears from the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks that he expects the debate on the timetable motion to run for three hours, as he says that there will be only one and three quarter hours for the substantive debate, so it is apparent from his and his colleagues' interventions that they are attempting to spin out time. Is that because they feel uneasy about grappling with the substantive issues, and perhaps hope not to reach the later amendments?

Mr. Garnier: For a man of the hon. Gentleman's intelligence, that was an unworthy and rather silly intervention, with which I shall not condescend to deal.
I should declare an interest which I declared on Second Reading. It is that I am a member of the Bar, and have been for 24 years, and a Queen's Counsel for just over five years. I appeared before juries in a few criminal trials at the outset of my career in the late 1970s, and I have appeared before a good many juries in civil defamation actions since. I am a recorder of the Crown court and have tried a good many criminal cases. I have directed juries in criminal trials on the law, and I have summed up the evidence to them. Like a number of hon. Members, I have direct and long-standing experience of the jury system.

I am sure that, if the Home Secretary has appeared before a jury in any capacity, he would have told us, even though he is a member of the Bar. The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), is a member of the Bar and used to practise in the criminal courts, but he does not have the conduct of the Bill. I also appreciate that another Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), told the Committee that he had appeared on his own behalf before Lord Devlin, but that was not before a jury.

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Garnier: Not for the moment.
Second Reading took place on 7 March 2000. The Government suffered a humiliating defeat in Committee on the first Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill. It was mauled by Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Cross-Benchers, Bishops and Labour peers. I watched that debate from the Bar of the House of Lords. The Attorney-General made a good speech. He is an accomplished advocate with a sweet tongue, but even his powers of advocacy were insufficient to persuade the other place. Many noble Lords no doubt remember the Attorney-General's vehement opposition to the proposals in that Bill when he wrote and was interviewed on that subject in 1993.
The Government said that they would not let that defeat go unavenged. This Bill was introduced in the Commons. We were threatened that, if the House of Lords defeated the Bill after it had been through the Commons, it would become subject to the Parliament Act.
Clearly, the second Bill was to be a top priority. We see from the opening paragraph of the Home Secretary's Second Reading speech on 7 March that
The Bill is part of the Government's programme to modernise the criminal justice system and to improve public confidence in it.— [Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 886.]
If it was part of the Government's programme, one would have thought that they would move with some speed to push the Bill to the top of the list. But after Second Reading on 7 March—it passed with the lowest Second Reading majority in this Parliament—nothing happened until Tuesday 23 May, a delay of two and a half months.
The Standing Committee met on Tuesday 23 May between 10.30 and 11.25 am, on Thursday 25 May between 10.30 and 11.23 am, on Tuesday 6 June between 10.30 am and 1 pm and between 4.30 and 7.34 pm, so there was not a great deal of time wasting or filibustering; nor can the Opposition, of all parties, be criticised in any way for their handling of the Committee stage. There are no grounds for suggesting that, in Committee, the Opposition parties sought to delay the Bill unfairly, unnecessarily or improperly.
The Bill finally came before us in July, in this, the last week of the parliamentary term. Why was it not allowed to return to the House before now? There have been several days between the Committee stage and now when we have gone home early as a result of a light work load and when the Bill could easily have been debated. If the Government cannot manage to produce the business in the House on time and make good use of the available hours, it is no good their sneaking the timetable motion on to the Order Paper late last night.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. and learned Friend's point is extremely important and it is reinforced by the fact that


there are no Government amendments, so the Government could have tabled the matter for debate at any time after it left Committee.

Mr. Garnier: Of course they could, and the Home Secretary knows that, but he has not yet provided us with a reason for failing to do so.

Mr. Leigh: He was negotiating with his hon. Friends.

Mr. Garnier: That may be so.
The real reason is that the Government feared that those Government Members who had principled objections to the Bill would cause trouble. There is no evidence of that, nor is there any evidence that any Opposition Member would cause trouble, yet last night, out of sheer terror and complete chaos, the Government tabled this motion to curtail time. Had the Government had even the slightest self-confidence in their arguments on the Bill, they would have advanced their case for it irrespective of the Opposition's arguments, either within the Government party or outside it. Even without that confidence, they might have had the decency to allow the Leader of the House at business questions last Thursday to alert us to the fact that time would be curtailed.
Although the measure is not a manifesto Bill, we know that the Government have the votes, if not the arguments, to get it through tonight. However, their guillotining of the Bill without prior reference to the need for a guillotine, let alone reference last week by the Leader of the House to Government anxieties about its likely progress, demonstrates a lack of confidence in its merits, and the fact that the Government care little for Parliament or the democratic process and even less for our constituents.
The second report of the Select Committee on Modernisation was published in July. Paragraph 5 on page v states:
The basic requirements of a reformed system as identified in our First Report were:
The Government of the day must be assured of getting its legislation through in reasonable time (provided that it obtains the approval of the House).
The Opposition in particular and Members in general must have a full opportunity to discuss and seek to change provisions to which they attach importance.
All parts of a bill must be properly considered.
If the Government are as good as their word, why do not they accept that that could happen without a timetable motion? Despite the contents of the report, the Government have presented a half-baked and late timetable motion.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and I wrote to The Times at the weekend. Little did we know that the anxieties that we expressed in that letter, which was published today, would be so quickly realised. [Interruption.] I am sure that the noisy little fellow at the back will have read the letter. It stated:
It is said that the Government is driving the Bill through without amendment, regardless of what one hopes will be the view of the House of Lords, in order that it may then use the Parliament Act to force it into law in the next session. How far away is tyranny?

When we wrote that letter, we did not know that tyranny, in the shape of the timetable motion, was at the door. The Government have a great deal for which to answer on the substance of the Bill and on the timetable motion.
The Home Secretary tried to persuade us that the timetable motion was sad but inevitable. It is not. The Government have tabled numerous timetable motions to curtail debate. There have been 12 already this year, including four in July. The measures guillotined in July are: the Local Government (Lords) Bill, the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill, the Football (Disorder) Bill and the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill. The Government guillotined those Bills because they cannot organise themselves properly to provide a timetable that fulfils the needs of the democratic process.

Mr. Straw: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman make the same criticism of successive Conservative Administrations, which guillotined as many Bills in some years?

Mr. Garnier: If the Home Secretary wants to check the figures, he might care to look at page xxvii of the Modernisation Committee report. Annex C shows that the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) tabled 17 timetable motions between 1991 and 1997. The Government have tabled 12 this year.
I suggest that we face a timetable motion today partly because of the allegations against the Home Secretary in The Guardian this morning. They relate to the questions that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a moment ago. The article states:
The home secretary, Jack Straw, seriously misled the House of Commons and Tony Blair over the extent of support among senior judges for his revised plans to restrict a defendant's right of trial by jury, a Labour MP revealed last night.
The article continues:
Mr. Straw told the Commons second reading debate on March 7 that his plan "enjoys the active endorsement of the lord chief justice, Lord Bingham, and the vast majority of the high court bench of nearly 100 senior judges".
Yet exactly a fortnight earlier Lord Bingham had expressed his "unease" to the home secretary in a private letter about the "dangers" of the legislation which was amended after being thrown out by the Lords.
The article goes on:
In a letter to Mr. Marshall-Andrews yesterday, the home secretary appeared to bluff it out, claiming that Lord Bingham still supports the change while admitting in the next sentence—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am listening carefully to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that he will now relate his remarks to the allocation of time.

Mr. Garnier: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The article said that the letter claimed that Lord Bingham continued to support the change,
while admitting in the next sentence that the law lord will only back it if it includes a safeguard that Mr. Straw has specifically rejected.
This morning, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire and I received a letter from the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon.


Member for Norwich, South. It is dated 25 July. The letter is addressed to my right hon. and learned Friend and copied to me. The second page states:
You also referred to the Prime Minister's reply to the question from David Lidington on 5 July. It seems to me that the Prime Minister was fully justified in his response. Both the Royal Commission and the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, supported the principle that defendants should not be able to choose to be tried by a jury in cases which magistrates have indicated that they would be content to hear. Lord Bingham is still. I understand. of the opinion that the decision whether an either way case should be tried in the Crown Court or by magistrates should be made by magistrates (subject to appeal to a Crown Court judge) and not, as now, by the defendant. He is, however, firmly of the view that in making their decision—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would relate his remarks to the allocation of time. I should be grateful if he would do it fairly quickly.

Mr. Garnier: Unfortunately, you were not here during the early part of the discussions, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not challenge the Chair, however moderately. I have heard sufficient while I have been in the Chair to advise him. I should be grateful if he would now relate his remarks to the allocation of time motion.

Mr. Garnier: Not all arguments can be compressed. The Home Secretary is keen for the amount of time during which we can debate the Bill to be curtailed to prevent the hon. and learned Member for Medway and the 18 or 19 of his supporters of the Third Reading amendment from having sufficient time to discuss the Bill. We are all here to argue against limiting to five hours discussion, not only on Report but on Third Reading, of a Bill of huge constitutional importance. If the Government cannot recognise a huge constitutional matter when it stares them in the face, we are in trouble. On behalf of our constituents, Members of Parliament, regardless of party, have a duty to complain about an overweening, arrogant and overreaching Government.
It will not do for the Government, through the Home Secretary or the Minister, to claim the support of the former Lord Chief Justice in speeches in the House or in correspondence when we know that such support is qualified. The final passage of the paragraph that I quoted from the Minister's letter brings home to us all the slippery ground on which the Home Secretary bases his case. It states:
Lord Bingham is still, I understand, of the opinion that the decision whether an either way case should be tried in the Crown Court or by magistrates should be made by magistrates (subject to appeal to a Crown Court judge) and not, as now, by the defendant. He is, however, firmly of the view that in making their decision magistrates should be free to take into account all the circumstances of the case which they consider to be relevant. I believe that Professor Zander holds a similar view. The difficulty with giving the courts such a wide-ranging discretion is that it would create a perception that defendants would be treated differently on the basis of their social or economic standing in society.
That goes to the heart of the amendment that the hon. and learned Member for Medway has tabled. The Government do not want that amendment to be debated because they

know that they do not have the support of the former Lord Chief Justice or of most right-thinking people in this country for the Bill.

Mr. Hogg: My hon. and learned Friend has referred to the constitutional aspects of the Bill. Before he sits down, will he also give us the benefit of his views on another matter? Is it not an outrage that the Bill will be guillotined partly on the backs of Scottish Members of Parliament, given that it will apply only to England and Wales and that Labour Members whose constituents have nothing at all to do with it will vote?

Mr. Garnier: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right and anticipates my next point. In the Scottish Daily Express of Friday 21 July, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was quoted as saying:
It is constitutionally abhorrent that Scottish MPs should vote on a matter concerning fundamental civil liberties in England and Wales while Westminster MPs have no right to vote on such legislation affecting Scotland.

Mr. Tom Levitt: That has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. First, there have been enough remarks from a sedentary position. Such matters can safely be left to the Chair. Secondly, the hon. and learned Gentleman is, yet again, drifting into a general debate, and I should be grateful to him if he returned to the allocation of time.

Mr. Garnier: I was coming precisely to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Not only does page 2453 of the Order Paper contain an amendment tabled by the hon. and learned Member for Medway and several other Labour Members, but it contains an amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. That amplifies and reflects the point made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow in the newspaper that I have quoted.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I stick to that quote.

Mr. Garnier: I am not in the least surprised that the hon. Gentleman does; he is an honourable and principled man.
The less time we have to debate the Bill at the Government's behest, the less likely it is that the aspects of the Bill that involve the West Lothian question and its effect on English and Welsh justice can be discussed. This is a grubby little Bill, and this is an even grubbier little timetable motion. It appears to me that the Government are fonder of the guillotine than Robespierre. The Government motion allows three hours of guillotined debate, after which Government or Opposition Members will be allowed only an hour and a half or an hour and three quarters to deal with the substance of the Bill. There is absolutely no reason for the House of Lords to feel in the least inhibited when, in its turn, it debates the Bill. I invite my hon. and right hon. Friends to throw out the motion or, failing that, at least to support the Opposition amendment.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are dealing with an amendment to leave out "five" and insert "eight" in paragraph 1 of the motion.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I shall be brief, but I believe that some issues that directly affect the Bill have not been aired. One group of people who will suffer seriously as a result of the Bill has not been mentioned in either House during the consideration of it. I referred to that group in a letter that I sent my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary several weeks ago, but I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.
Lord Devlin defined the precise purpose of juries as follows:
A jury is an insurance that the criminal law will conform to the ordinary man's idea of what is fair and just. If it does not, the jury will not be a party to its enforcement.
In the past 18 months, juries throughout the country have refused to convict defendants who are manifestly guilty. Precisely those cases will be treated as involving crimes covered by the Bill. They will be tried by judges who will conform to the letter of the law and to what Parliament has told them, and the people involved will find themselves treated unjustly.
I have given the Home Secretary a long list of those whom juries are refusing to convict. They include those who are seriously ill, many of whom are suffering from multiple sclerosis. Many of them are terminally ill and suffering, in the main, from cancer and the effects of chemotherapy and the nausea that it causes. That is no ordinary nausea; it destroys the will to live. However, they have supposedly committed the crime of using a medicine of their choice. If they had used any medicinal drug, it would have been okay. If they had used heroin, and £11 million of heroin is involved—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would direct his remarks to the allocation of time motion.

Mr. Flynn: The point that I wish to make is that we need more time to present those cases. I said that I would be brief, but I want to explain why I am unhappy about the motion. I want to bring the precise cases that are dealt with in later amendments to the attention of the House, because it is not aware of the individuals involved. Such people have been convicted by magistrates and judges, not by juries, who are doing precisely what Lord Devlin said. They have found that the law is not just or fair, and they are acting with the common sense of ordinary people in refusing to convict those who have used cannabis for their illnesses. If the Bill is passed, such people will not have the chance to go before a jury.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman must bring his remarks to a close.

Mr. Flynn: I have brought them to a close.

Mr. Simon Hughes: This is the 12th Home Office Bill this year; there were nine in the Queen's Speech, but this is the 12th. We are protesting about the guillotine as well as the Bill, because everyone knows that the Bill was never trailed in the Government's manifesto. It was never part of their policy and their candidates did not stand on a platform of supporting it. Indeed, the Government opposed such proposals in the past.

The Government changed their mind, collectively, miraculously and all at once, having strongly held the opposite view, collectively, only a few months before.
The Government have determined the timetable. They chose to introduce the first reduced jury rights Bill in the House of Lords—no one else made that decision—but the House of Lords said no. I remind hon. Members that the House of Lords said no having just been recast in the form that the Government wanted. It was a House of Lords recast in the image of Blair, with a new disposition, most hereditary peers removed and smaller numbers. It was the new Labour House of Lords, the new, much less Opposition-dominated House of Lords, that said no. The Government chose where to introduce the Bill, and they chose the composition of the House in which they introduced it.

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way.

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Hughes: No, I will not. I am trying to take less time than the Home Secretary, who took half an hour to fail to explain why the guillotine was necessary, or the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, who also took half an hour. I may give way in a moment if the right hon. Gentleman waits his turn.
When the Government introduced the Bill in the House, their majority was almost halved; a significant number of Labour Members did not support it. Since then, the Government have chosen to take all the time between Second Reading—which, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) said, was in March—and now before considering the Bill again. There was no delay in Committee. I served on the Committee; it had four sittings and its debates were perfectly proper. We debated what we needed to debate. The reason why there were no significant debates on the amendments was the core issue—that the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats opposed the principle of the Bill. We did not tinker around the edges; we debated the principles and the clauses.
Since the Committee reported, on 6 June, the Government have chosen not to debate the Bill until now. They have waited until the very last week of term. Why the urgency? Because the parliamentary year ends in three days? No. Because the parliamentary year ends next week? No. There is plenty of time before the end of the parliamentary year. The Government decide the holidays, and when this House and the Lords resume, so they are in charge of the timetable. Last night, the Government, and only the Government, tabled a guillotine motion for a Bill of significant constitutional importance. When they did so, Madam Speaker had provisionally selected only four groups of amendments. The effect of the guillotine will be that there will probably be only a brief debate on Third Reading, or none at all.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but are not these speeches taking up time that would otherwise be available to the House to debate the amendments? Also, has he not noticed that there is no Government majority in another place? He is opposing


not the guillotine or debate on the amendments, but the sensible proposition that the decision on mode of trial should be left to magistrates, not defendants.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman's party tabled the guillotine, not us. That is why we are having the debate. We would happily debate the amendments, although we oppose the Bill, for reasons that I believe to be self-evident. He opposed a similar proposal in 1997, so I am surprised that he—

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way again.

Mr. Michael: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Bill embodies a principle that I, as an experienced magistrate, have always supported.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter for debate, not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Hogg: Should not the hon. Gentleman also remind the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) that the Government have decided that the time taken for the debate must come out of the time allocated for the substantive debates on the Bill. That is their decision.

Mr. Hughes: That is absolutely true. The Government did not have to make such provision, and time could have been allocated for the guillotine and for the substantive debates. They are curtailing debate, and must take responsibility for that.
Although some amendments tabled by us and by the Conservatives were not selected, we want to debate the issues as much as possible because we believe that the case for not passing the Bill into law is overwhelming. We happen to believe that the Government's guillotine steamroller will make it much less likely that the Bill will become law. Bizarrely and paradoxically, it is the other place that perpetually has to slow the Government down when they use their artificial majority in this place to push measures through against opinion elsewhere, however well informed.
The Home Secretary, I hope not intentionally, led us to believe that the Bill would not take away a right. However, although it will not end jury trial, the right to choose trial by jury in England and Wales for charges such as making threats to kill, assault, possession of offensive weapons, child abduction, burglary, theft, handling, indecent assault, indecency between males, unlawful sexual intercourse with girls under 16, cruelty to children and violent disorder will be removed. If those are not important matters, on which people might want to choose who should try them, I do not know what important matters are.
The Government have never said that jury trial is not a good form of trial. On the contrary, they want to keep it for other offences.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman, too, is straying from the allocation of time motion. I should be grateful if he returned to it.

Mr. Hughes: I shall try to be very good and not stray from the motion.
My proposition is that the Government have no justification for guillotining debate on the Bill. What in the Home Secretary's remarks was new? Nothing. What new evidence is there for putting the Bill on the statute book quickly? None. Is the right to trial by jury more widely abused than before? No. The evidence is in the other direction. Fewer people than before elect to go to the Crown court. Fewer people than before who go to Crown court "get off'. Has the guillotine been tabled because we need to respond urgently to a royal commission? No, because the royal commission report was published in 1993. The Labour party described it as short-sighted then, and did not think it necessary to respond to it, either between 1993 and 1997 or between 1997 and 2000. Do we urgently need to respond to the Narey report? No. The report was published in 1997, before the election. The Labour party in opposition disagreed with it and said that its recommendations were wrong.

Mr. Hawkins: Including the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael).

Mr. Hughes: All Government Members, including the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, upheld the present position—the right to choose jury trial—at the election.
Do we urgently need to act because a past Lord Chief Justice or the new Lord Chief Justice has told the Government, "You urgently need to act." Not at all. Senior members of the judiciary have been asked their views, but have not proposed any initiatives. Much more importantly, do we urgently need to respond because an independent review of the law has just been undertaken? No. The Government asked Lord Justice Auld to carry out an independent review, and he has started work and produced a non-exhaustive list of issues on which he is basing that review. He is reviewing this question on behalf of the Government right now:
If jury trial is to be retained for "either-way" cases, who is to determine whether the matter shall go to the jury and by reference to what criterion or criteria? If the main criterion is to be the seriousness of the charge, is there a case for changing the present level of seriousness? Should all cases destined for trial by jury start in the Crown court?
Such questions are being asked of the judge who is currently carrying out the review. On 5 May, he produced his progress report to Ministers about which questions he is focusing on, including the simple question:
Who should decide where a case is to be tried.
The person who has been asked to produce a report has not reported, yet the Government are legislating before receiving the evidence. That represents bad legislation, bad timetabling and a bad argument for speedily moving in that direction.

Mr. David Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has not the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) wandered even further from the point than the two previous speakers, who were rightly called to order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is entirely a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Hughes: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
All the arguments for haste, urgency and the guillotine motion are contradicted by the facts. Any urgency that there might have been when the Government introduced the Bill at the beginning of the year has lessened. The plea before venue initiative, which requires a plea to be made before the venue is decided, has reduced the number of people who change their plea. Disincentives to changing a plea late—removing the sentence discount, for example—have been introduced. With every month that has passed since the Bill was introduced, those measures have meant that fewer people have changed their plea late.
What is the reason for the urgency? Are the Government desperately short of public money, so that they have to make savings? Even if the measure will achieve a saving, that argument falls. Last week the Chancellor said that he had £43 billion of public money and handed it out left, right and centre like Father Bountiful. Even if the argument for the Bill is that it will save money, as the Prime Minister often says, I cannot believe that that is the argument for acting so quickly now. Is there new evidence from Scotland? There is not. Scotland has never had a right to jury trial, so it is not a parallel jurisdiction. England had an automatic right to jury trial until the middle of the previous century. No, there are no new arguments about costings, savings or benefits.
Is there a case for less scrutiny? Are the Government performing in such a way that the public can be confident that Parliament ought to spend less time considering legislation? No such evidence has been provided by the Home Office legislative programme over the past few months. It is not as if the Government always get it right and introduce Bills so well drafted and so carefully prepared that they glide through this House and on to the other place. The scrutiny that this House and the other place have given Bills has been central to our ability to get right what would otherwise have been severely flawed legislation. After proper scrutiny of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and the Terrorism Bill we were able to ensure that the burden of proof was clearly with the prosecution. In spite of the guillotine motion last week, after proper scrutiny in this House and in the other place we were able to get changes in the Football (Disorder) Bill. The House of Lords has voted on the timetable for further changes, and has now refused to proceed as quickly as the Government would like it to, because it wants time to scrutinise the Bill properly.
This House and the other place are insisting that we scrutinise legislation to get it right. The number of times that the Government have introduced legislation that has clearly been flawed and has had to be amended is evidence, if it were needed, that we should consider the Bill very carefully.
The Bill is about the most fundamental right of a person charged with a serious offence—to be tried by his ordinary fellow citizens. It is a right that enables the most vulnerable, the most ill educated and the most prejudiced against to feel that they have a chance to put their case fairly. We are not against magistrates; we are not suggesting that they do not do a good job. We are saying that juries do a better job. We want all our citizens to have the right to let juries decide.
If the Government are determined, against what they said in their manifesto, against all the indications, and against all the principles on which some of us thought the Labour party had come to office, to railroad the Bill through, against the evidence, against public opinion, against the advice of the House of Lords and against the view of many Labour Members, they must allow the House of Commons adequate time to stand up for the rights of the citizen.
I ask all hon. Members, especially Labour Members, who were elected to oppose such legislation, to give the Government the sharpest warning possible. The Government should await the Auld committee's recommendations, like the rest of us, so that we have some evidence and up-to-date opinion, and do not legislate in haste. It is perfectly reasonable to review the law, but we should ensure that if we consider changing it, we do so having listened to the voices and taken a free vote of the representatives, not a dragooned vote imposed by the Government against the clock.
This is a scandalous guillotine motion, and in our view, this is a scandalous Bill. I hope that the Government do not get it through the other place, even if they get it through this House. That would serve them right, and the public would, mercifully, be spared this bad legislation from—at least on this issue—an extremely illiberal, authoritarian and oppressive Government.

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spent a considerable part of his speech—over half an hour—dealing with the views of the former Lord Chief Justice, and the comments that he had made about those views on Second Reading. He plainly thought that that was meat for a guillotine debate, and so do I. The views of the former Lord Chief Justice and the other senior judiciary are critical to this issue because they will sway Members of the House.
On Second Reading, at the beginning of the debate, my right hon. Friend said:
Today, it—
not a single Member of the House had the slightest doubt that when my right hon. Friend said "it" he meant the Bill—
enjoys the active endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, and of the vast majority of the High Court Bench of nearly 100 senior judges.
We never debated that assertion, because we accepted it implicitly from the Home Secretary. Had there been reason to doubt it, that debate would have been very different. If there is now reason to doubt that assertion, this debate should be very different. We now need to spend time considering, challenging and analysing that statement. My right hon. Friend obviously thought that it was right to spend such a long time on it and to deal with what I had said about it, and I agree with him.
I know that you will bear with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I deal with the assertion that was made about the views of the Lord Chief Justice. It gives me no pleasure to say that there is not the slightest doubt that the Home Secretary's statement on Second Reading, either wilfully or otherwise, misled the House. There is not the slightest doubt that the Lord Chief Justice did not give—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be careful with the words he uses.


He cannot suggest, directly or indirectly, that the Home Secretary has misled the House. I should be grateful if he would rephrase his comments.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: My right hon. Friend's statement was manifestly inaccurate. I shall spend a moment explaining how that came about, because I took down exactly what my right hon. Friend said. He spoke at length about my views on the Bill, and he knows perfectly well that I and many of my colleagues have always been completely against it. We believe fundamentally in the right to elect jury trial for all the reasons that have been so articulately set out.
In the opinion of some, including the much-respected Lord Chief Justice, the Bill was acceptable, but only because of the recommendation of the Runciman royal commission that it should contain a reputation and livelihood clause. That matter is not peripheral, as my right hon. Friend suggested; it is central to the Bill. It is so central that on 10 March, three days after my right hon. Friend made his speech on Second Reading, Professor Michael Zander, the chief jurist on the Runciman royal commission, withdrew his support and stated publicly that the commission's support for the Bill could no longer be relied on. That shows how critical the matter was.
If Professor Zander had withdrawn his support, it seemed to me that the Lord Chief Justice may have withdrawn his support too, so I wrote to him and I asked him whether he had done so. I received a reply by return saying that he was embarrassed because he had been in correspondence with the Home Secretary and he did not wish to breach confidence. He said that he would waive any confidence in that correspondence if I wrote to the Home Secretary, which I did on 4 July.
Between 4 July and Friday of last week I heard precisely nothing from the Home Office. I had asked for details of that correspondence, and in particular of the views of the Lord Chief Justice that had been so glowingly endorsed by my right hon. Friend. On Thursday of last week, when we learned that the Bill was to be sprung out, I got in touch with my right hon. Friend's private office asking as a matter of urgency that I receive a reply. I got it by fax yesterday.
I confess that I was surprised by the fact that the correspondence revealed that the Lord Chief Justice had written to my right hon. Friend on 22 February, two weeks before the debate on Second Reading. I shall quote a little from that letter—it is very short. It said:
Thank you very much for your letter of 21 February.
That letter had been entirely about the withdrawal of the safeguard of reputation and livelihood.
The Lord Chief Justice continued:
But your conclusion … causes me concern.
He went on to deal with the Bill, and, at the end of the next paragraph of his letter, said:
I think there are dangers in excluding consideration of anything which is relevant in the given case.

He then gave two examples of actual cases in which injustice would plainly result, and went on to say—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is responding in part to earlier remarks

by the Home Secretary, and I have therefore given him a little leeway, but he must direct his comments towards the allocation of time motion.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I entirely accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I think that if you bear with me for a moment you will see why I raise the matter. There is very little more of the letter, and when I have finished quoting from it I shall end my speech.
The Lord Chief Justice wrote:
Both men, for opposite reasons, rely on their records as a reason for seeking jury trial. Are the magistrates and the crown court judge to be obliged to ignore these points? If so, that is surely unsatisfactory.
The Lord Chief Justice added—my right hon. Friend cited this passage—
I am uneasy at requiring decision-makers to ignore matters of which reasonable decision-makers might wish to take account.
Not a word was sent to Lord Bingham before Second Reading; but, bearing in mind what Lord Bingham had said in his letter, my right hon. Friend said at the beginning of the debate:
Today, it enjoys the active endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 886.]
That, in my respectful submission, constitutes a fairly strange construction of the words "active", "endorsement" and "enjoys".
It is plain that Lord Justice Bingham was extremely concerned about the Bill. That is what we need to debate. The concerns that he aired, from an immensely respected position, were precisely the issues that we were put off debating on Second Reading by the Home Secretary's assertion. I make no bones about it: that assertion was wrong, and because it was wrong we did not debate the issue adequately.
Many of my colleagues were moved intellectually—undoubtedly and understandably—by what they understood to be the imprimatur of the Lord Chief Justice. However, now that we know that that was wrong, we need to ventilate the matter in full, so that the House can proceed on the basis of knowing precisely what the senior judiciary are saying.
It gives me no pleasure to bring this matter before the House. I do not suggest for a moment that what happened was deliberate, and I hoped to hear my right hon. Friend say that it was an error. I am sorry to say, however, that his reply centred on the definition of the word "it", which Members may not consider entirely satisfactory.
Thank you for bearing with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mine was a somewhat lengthy speech, given that this is a guillotine debate. For the reasons I have given, I urge Members to oppose the motion, so that we can engage in a proper and constructive debate on one of the most important issues that the House has debated in the new Parliament.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I endorse what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews).
An amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition suggests that we should have eight hours for tonight's debate. If the Home Secretary agreed now to allow those eight hours—it is open to him


to do so—I should be happy to say no more now, to sit down, and to allow the House to proceed with the debate on the substantive issues. However, there are important substantive issues to be discussed.
As is well known, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Medway that the Bill is wrong in principle. That is an issue for Second Reading and Third Reading debates, which will rightly be dealt with on Third Reading tonight if we have time; but with only five hours we shall not have time for a proper debate, and I therefore hope that we shall have eight hours.
There are other important matters, even below the fundamental point of principle. That point was well put by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). We are talking about an ancient right of the people of England and Wales, dating back specifically to 1855, but in fact dating back to the century or so after Magna Carta. As long ago as the 14th century, all serious cases were tried by jury; indeed, the penalty for not accepting trial by jury in the early years was to be crushed to death.
Jury trial is a great upholder of our liberties. It is a very important part of our democracy. We need time to convey that point—which is not widely understood—to the Chamber, and to the country at large.
Some, like Lord Bingham—whom 1 hold in the greatest respect—may disagree with me. They may believe that the question where a person should be tried is a judicial question, which should be decided by a court rather than by the individual citizen as of right. Even they, however, must accept that the Bill fundamentally transgresses what both the former Lord Chief Justice and the Runciman royal commission made clear was a fundamental condition—that the court deciding where a trial should be held should be able to take into account all relevant matters, and in particular the question of reputation.

Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should read the details of what the royal commission said. It did not make the issue of reputation or livelihood a fundamental point of principle. Paragraph 18 of the relevant chapter refers to the issue of principle and proposes that reputation should be included, but the report continues:
We see merit in the legislation specifically referring to the various matters (including potential loss of reputation) which the bench should take into account.
There is no suggestion that the commission saw that as a fundamental point of principle at the time. What it did see as a fundamental point of principle was the question whether the judiciary—the magistrates, according to its recommendation—rather than the defendant should determine the mode of trial.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) responds, let me ask him not to be tempted to stray too wide of the mark again, and to confine his remarks to the allocation of time motion.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: It must be abundantly clear to you and to the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this is a central point at issue, and that time is required to tease it out.
I have read the commission's report. With all respect to the Home Secretary, I think that when the commission says it sees merit in loss of reputation being taken into account it is using measured language—as Lord Bingham did when he said that he was not entirely enamoured of the conditional clauses in the first Bill. He said that the widest possible discretion should be given. I have tabled amendments to that effect, as have my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). We need time to discuss those amendments, and to tease out the issues. We have also tabled amendments on other important matters.
If a person is to be tried not in the Crown court but in the magistrates court, it is essential for that trial to be as well conducted and as properly prepared as a trial in the Crown court now is.
I have great respect for magistrates, but those of us who have practised—I sit currently as a recorder and have practised as a member of the Bar in the magistrates courts and Crown courts—all know that, by and large, cases are not as carefully prepared when they come before the magistrates courts. Amendments have been tabled that we need to discuss this evening to provide that the same type of disclosure and legal representation by counsel and solicitor should be available in the magistrates court as in the Crown court.

Mr. Hogg: My right hon. and learned Friend raises precisely the point that I was going to make. It is important, if these serious trials are to take place in front of the magistrate, that there be full discovery and full pre-trial disclosure of the evidence—as there is before the Crown court—if the defendant is to get a proper trial.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: My right hon. and learned Friend emphasises that important point. It takes time to bring that out.
The Home Secretary, inadvertently no doubt, misled not only the House, but the Prime Minister. On 5 July, when the Prime Minister was asked in Prime Minister's questions if he would drop the Bill—which I would advise him to do; the wise thing is to pass the matter to Lord Justice Auld—he gave three reasons for continuing with the Bill. He prayed in aid the support of the former Lord Chief Justice and was thus led into error by the Home Secretary in exactly the same way.
The Prime Minister prayed in aid the Runciman royal commission, notwithstanding that, by that time, Professor Zander, a member of the royal commission and no doubt as fully familiar with its provisions and as fully able to interpret them as the Home Secretary, regarded the Bill to be fundamentally against what the Runciman royal commission had been prepared to recommend.
The Prime Minister made a third point that we need time to be able to tease out. He talked about the saving of money. We need time to draw to the attention of the House and of the country that that notion is bogus, or is based on something that the Government would not he prepared to avow. We need time to highlight that, in accordance with the Home Secretary's answers through the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who was on the Front Bench a moment ago, £84 million of the £120 million of supposed savings comes from shorter prison sentences. We need


time to dwell on the fact that it is to be supposed that regular thieves who transgress time and again, who are currently given sentences averaging 11 months' imprisonment in the Crown court—which is, of course, supervised by the Court of Appeal—would, in order to save money, get an average sentence of 3.6 months in the magistrates court. We need time to wonder whether that is not absurd and whether that does not run counter to practically everything for which the Home Secretary professes to stand.
Therefore, there are fundamental flaws in the Bill. If we do not have a reasonable number of hours to debate them, this proposal, which is of deep importance to every citizen and which is designed to take away a right that has stood for hundreds of years, should be voted down. I remind the House that that right was supported passionately by the Home Secretary as little as three years ago and by the present Attorney-General at the same date; they have now changed their minds for reasons that become more byzantine and intertwined by the minute.

Mr. Garnier: Just to add to the catalogue of supporters of the principle, the Prime Minister himself, as shadow Home Secretary, was a supporter of the jury system.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. With the time and opportunity for reflection which opposition gives—I hope that that chance will soon be given again to the Prime Minister—he thought more wisely than he does today. We need a chance to think wisely about the Bill. The guillotine in wrong in principle. Eight hours would be reasonable time for debate. It should be granted now.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: I begin by declaring an interest, as always in these matters. I am a practising lawyer. I am a recorder of the Crown court and, I think uniquely in the House in living memory, I am also an acting metropolitan stipendiary magistrate. I think that I have presided over and taken part in more trials than any hon. Member in living memory. I apologise for appearing bumptious, but I speak from a nuts-and-bolts position.
Over the past three years, I have had rather a lot of respect for the Home Secretary, principally because I have found him to be a Minister who treats the House of Commons seriously, who comes to the House to talk to us, who is always ready to listen and, if not to accept, certainly to take on board ideas. That respect, I am afraid, has been heavily dented because, in the past fortnight, two guillotine motions have been put before us that are absolutely shoddy. The Home Secretary should be ashamed to be associated with them.
Indeed, such is my regard for the Home Secretary that I believe that, in this case, he was not the originator of the idea and probably had to be heavily persuaded to speak in its favour. He is a man who has hitherto encouraged open and full debate about important issues, but today that is not going to happen.
I, my hon. Friends, many Labour Members and many people out there listening to the debate will be furious that our time to debate some very important issues has been viciously curtailed by the Government. Was it ever necessary to guillotine the debate? I asked the Home Secretary that in an intervention.
The amendments for debate tonight are in four groups. My amendments have been listed in each of those groups. Mine is the lead amendment in three out of four of those groups. May I modestly say that I have never filibustered in the House or in Committee? Well, perhaps I have in Committee, but never in the House. The Home Secretary was good enough to acknowledge that he did not see any thought of a filibuster from me.
Let us look at the history of the Bill. It had its Second Reading on 7 March and went into Committee on 23 May. Was there a problem in Committee? There was not. The Committee spent a total of only some eight and a half hours debating the Bill. There were reasoned contributions from my hon. Friends, many of whom are here, so there was nothing during the Committee stage that suggested that Conservative Members were going to cause any difficulty. Now, for some reason, the Bill is brought before us, a matter of hours before the summer recess starts, with a guillotine motion that requires us, in effect, to debate every amendment and Third Reading inside two hours. It simply will not do.
We know why the Home Secretary has brought the guillotine motion forward—it is because he cannot control those on his own side of the House. It is nothing to do with what would be said by those on the Conservative Benches. Those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who would have contributed to the debates on the amendments would have made fairly brief, thoughtful, important points. They would have followed what they did in Committee, and the same goes for the representative of the Liberal Democrats, but the Government found today that they could not control their own Back Benchers, who were themselves determined to talk at great length.

Mr. Hogg: Will my hon. Friend take this explanation? Perhaps the Government were not worried about not being able to control their Back Benchers—it was the fact of Labour Back Benchers in considerable numbers opposing the Bill that was embarrassing to Ministers.

Mr. Malins: My right hon. and learned Friend is right. The Government have been driven to move their guillotine motion by the very fact that so many Labour Back Benchers, who have behaved so honourably in this matter, oppose the Bill.
The former Lord Chief Justice's comments on the matter have already been mentioned. Although I have never spoken to the former Lord Chief Justice, I respect his views immensely. However, in past years, I have had the advantage of speaking to literally hundreds of those who sit in our judicial system—to magistrates across the country; to stipendiary magistrates, both in London and in the provinces; to recorders of the Crown court; and to Crown court judges, who daily administer justice. Although their views on the matter are divided, many of them share the concerns of Opposition Members. However, they would all be united in one opinion.
If I were to say to any one of those people that the House is going to spend only two hours debating all the remaining stages of the Bill, he or she would be horrified. They would not be able to understand how hon. Members can conduct our affairs so stupidly that we spend only two hours debating a Bill that affects the fundamental liberties of millions of people. The judiciary would be united on that one point.
The guillotine is not even necessary. Why should we guillotine these four groups of amendments? No Opposition Member would speak to any of them at great length. Are the amendments so unimportant that they deserve not even two hours of debate? Indeed, after time spent on Third Reading and perhaps on a Division halfway through our debates, we might have only minutes to debate each group of amendments.
Labour Members know as well as I do that the workings of this place are such that, in all probability, most of these amendments will not be discussed at all. They will never be discussed. Why have we even attended the debate? Some Labour Members know about the subject, as do some Opposition Members. However, we will not be able to discuss the amendments. Is anyone proud of that? I am not.
The first group of amendments deals with committals for sentence—sending people to the Crown court for sentence after we have forced them to have a magistrates court trial. Is that not an issue worthy of debate?
The second contains a vital amendment seeking to have the accused's circumstances taken into account. Is not that what the Bill is all about? Are we not going to talk about that? Does it not deserve more time?
The third group of amendments deals with certain rights for the accused after a decision is made by the magistrates court, such as the right to have the reasons for that decision recorded in the register and given to the accused in writing. Are not those important issues that affect people's daily lives?
The fourth group of amendments deals with the appeals process. It is concerned not with giving the accused the right to appeal on paper, as I understand is being proposed, but with the accused's right to be represented and heard before a judge. Does anyone think that that is not worthy of discussion? Does anyone really think that we do ourselves justice by devoting only two hours of our time to debating issues of such importance?
There are other issues. However, no one will have a chance to address the disclosure of documents. Who will have the chance to talk about the costs—the so-called savings—of the Bill? Who will have a chance to discuss the views of the ethnic minorities, who have something to say about jury trial? We sit here simply waiting—waiting perhaps to vote.
In my view, this is a travesty of a parliamentary proceeding. This is not what I was elected for. I come to today's debates with some knowledge of the subject, and yet—for the second time in a fortnight—I may not be able to contribute. I could have contributed also to our debates on the Football (Disorder) Bill, and I am sure that other hon. Members could have contributed even more. Although I lack knowledge on many subjects, Labour Members and Opposition Members may well possess that knowledge. Let them have a chance to speak, rather than simply to go through the Lobby.
Here we are—we have let ourselves down again. We are facing a guillotine motion from an autocratic Government who do not seem to want to listen to Members of this House. Members of the public who regard the right to jury trial as one of most important rights, whether they are for it or against it, will look at us today and say, "Two hours to discuss all that? You should be ashamed of yourselves." We should be.

7.45

Mr. Edward Leigh: It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Matins). I feel that I can do no more than to adopt what he has said, because he speaks from such great personal experience. I should like, however, to make another point.
I am not necessarily opposed to timetabling Bills, which I think can be quite good if it is done by consensus. I should certainly not like it if, in any future reform, the Government were made solely responsible for timetabling Bills. I should like the Government to present their programme to Parliament, for both Whips Offices to make representations, and then for the Speaker and the Speaker's Deputies to determine the timetable. I think that that would be the fair way to go about it. Nevertheless, I am not necessarily opposed to timetabling.
I am also not necessarily opposed to guillotines. The Home Secretary was quite right to say that, since the passage of the government of Ireland legislation at the end of the 19th century, all Governments have been faced with determined Opposition tactics to delay Bills dealing with matters of high principle. As we all know, delay is the only weapon available to Oppositions. All Oppositions—including the previous, Labour Opposition, and the current Opposition—have resorted to perfectly legitimate time-wasting activities because that is the only weapon available to us. There is nothing wrong with using that weapon. Equally, however, as we all realise, the Government have to have their way, even if we are debating a very complex and long Bill and the Opposition are determined to go on talking. There is no argument about that.
Today, however, we are talking about a very different type of Bill. This is a rather strange Bill. Although it deals with a matter of high principle, it is not very technical, and it addresses an issue that we can all understand. It is very easy to understand the Bill's basic concept: whether those who are accused of dishonesty—or other offences, but primarily dishonesty—should have an absolute right to be tried by a jury of their peers. We are talking primarily about people of good character who are accused of crimes such as shoplifting. We are perhaps talking about a case involving a middle-aged housewife who has shoplifted and now faces a devastating moment in her life. The concept is quite easy to grasp and probably does not require tremendous time for debate.
Nevertheless, although the concept is simple enough, it is also very ancient. Last night, on a point of order, I said that the concept was seven centuries old, but I was wrong—it is more than eight centuries old. After a bit more research, I have found that the concept of trial by jury dates back to Henry II, and that it was given impetus by the fact that, in November 1215, the then Pope abolished trial by ordeal. People feel very strongly about that ancient right, and they want to talk about it. They do not want to talk about it at inordinate length—they simply want to have their say and to have their day in court. That is quite reasonable.
Interestingly, in 1275, jury trial was given another impetus by a form of torture called peine forte et dure, whereby people were placed between two planks with increasingly heavy weights placed on top of them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's comments are extremely interesting, but I am not sure that they relate to the allocation of time motion. Could he return to that?

Mr. Leigh: I was about to say that that form of torture was rather like a guillotine motion, but we will leave that on one side.
Although the Bill deals with a matter of huge importance, we could have dealt with it fairly. Reference has been made to the famous Committee stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking could not be a member of that Committee, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and I were the Conservative Back Benchers on it. We had some good debates. The whole thing was finished in eight hours. There has never been any question that we tried to delay matters unduly. Following what happened in that Committee, there was surely never any question that we would come here tonight to filibuster, time waste and the rest of it.
There is an honest difference of opinion in the House on the matter. Some take a principled stance and are opposed to any limitation of trial by jury. One can understand their view. The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) is a distinguished proponent of that view. Others like myself take a different view and would be prepared to accept some limitation on the right to trial by jury, but want the reputation of the accused to be taken into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking went through the four groups of amendments. The first group is important. It deals with an issue that is perhaps of particular importance to lawyers—committal for sentence. We could debate it for an hour or so. One can see quickly that, once we had debated that group for an hour or an hour and a half, it is possible that on the crucial second set of amendments—on matters to be considered by the court when determining mode of trial—there would be no prospect of voting. There may not even be time to have a serious debate.
I keep hearing comments from a sedentary position that we could have had five hours of debate on the amendments if we had not spoken on the guillotine motion. I hope that the hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) will forgive me if I say that that is rather an arrogant attitude. After all, if the Government introduce a guillotine motion on a measure to abolish a right that has been around since 1215, it is not unreasonable that a few Members of Parliament should debate it.

Mr. Garnier: Is not the word that links the debate, our objections to the guillotine, the substance of the Bill and the view taken by my hon. Friend, many Opposition Members and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) the simple word "justice"?

Mr. Leigh: Yes, justice. That was put eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking when he went through the groups of amendments and asked whether we were doing justice to ourselves or to Parliament.
We have had a perfectly satisfactory guillotine debate. No one has sought to spin things out. We are coming to a conclusion now. There is just one more Back Bencher to speak. We have had a perfectly serious debate, but how

long will we have to debate the issues? What is so sad is that if the Government had not introduced the guillotine motion and we had started the debate two hours ago, we could have disposed of the four groups of amendments in about five hours. So what on earth are we playing at? It is not for me to defend the Government's reputation, but they would not have had egg on their face. No one would have gone to the other place and said that there was not adequate time to debate the amendments. We would have had a perfectly serious debate.
The Committee is supposed to be the place where one filibusters. Many amendments can be tabled and we have great freedom to manoeuvre. Apparently, we want to delay the Bill, but we delayed it for only eight hours in Committee. So what are the Government playing at? Why on earth have they introduced this timetable motion? That is absolutely germane to the debate.
The only conclusion that one can come away with is that the Government do not want to have a vote on the second group of amendments, which deal with the key issue. I remind the House what that key issue is. Many of us believe that the present system is being abused. I give credit to the Home Secretary. Many sensible people ask why an old lag with 20 convictions who is accused, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said in a conversation with me, of stealing a bottle of whisky from the local store should be allowed to waste the time of the Crown court. The public often come up with that point. Many people sympathise with what the Home Secretary is doing.
However, many people want to debate the issue back and forth. They say that in the case of the old lag, denial of the right to trial by jury is fair enough, but if the archetypal housewife of previous good character is accused of taking something out of the local store, it is a devastating moment in her life so her reputation should be taken into account. I remind the House that the Bill is explicit. It says in new section 19(2)(b) in clause 1 that the court can take account of
any of the circumstances of the offence (but not of the accused).
That is the most important issue, and we will not even have a vote on it. That is what people outside will find so extraordinary.
Let us suppose that a person of good character who has never done anything wrong walks out of a supermarket in a moment of absent-mindedness carrying something. They are accused of shoplifting and their character is on the line, and yet the House of Commons has never voted on the key issue of whether that person's reputation should be taken into account, or even properly debated it. Is that not extraordinary? The House of Commons is supposed to be the guardian of our civil liberties. It is just not good enough.
Why are the Government so determined to prevent a vote? What would it matter if there was a vote? What would it matter if the Opposition voted for the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking after a debate of an hour and a half? What would it matter if 10 or 15 Labour Members voted against the Government? Would it bring the Government down? Of course not, but we would have had a proper debate and Parliament would have done its duty. The duty of Parliament is to scrutinise the Government and we are not doing that tonight. That is a shame.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and for Woking (Mr. Malins) and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), with whom I shared chambers for many years. The way in which they and other hon. Members have approached the debate surely confounds the arguments of those who have asserted that the timetable motion is necessary to prevent time wasting, prolixity or unreasonable frustration of the Bill. They have approached the matter in a serious and considered manner, and I believe that that would have been typical of the debate had we proceeded immediately.
One point that came out strongly from the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Medway is that many Labour Members voted for the Bill on Second Reading on a misunderstanding as to fact. That misunderstanding was about the opinion of the then Lord Chief Justice. That fact alone is an argument against the timetable motion because it is important that Labour Members who voted for the Bill on Second Reading on a misunderstanding should be aware of the nature of that misunderstanding, should have time to reflect on it and should have time to talk to Ministers. The way in which the Bill is being hurried through Report stage tonight means that they will not be able to do that.
My next point is one that I have made on previous timetable motions. It is regrettable that this should be the fourth timetable debate in as many weeks. The passage of legislation depends for its legitimacy on consideration of the detailed measures in this place. Let us remind ourselves that the Report stage of a Bill is the first occasion when the House as a whole considers what my hon. Friend the Member for Woking described as the nuts and bolts of a Bill. We cannot do that in Committee because, understandably, the membership of the Committee is constrained; nor can we do so on Second Reading because the House is concerned about the broad principles of a Bill.
The Report stage is the moment in legislation when the House as a whole has the opportunity to address specific issues. A timetable motion, such as this one, prevents the House from doing that. If the House is prevented from doing its business, the legitimacy that attaches to any legislation that comes from the House is undermined.
On a similar point, you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the intervention made by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is not in the Chamber because I am about to say something complimentary. What he was doing—albeit on the timetable motion, although I am sure that he would have wanted, and perhaps will try, to do the same thing either on Report or on Third Reading—is to articulate, within the context of the broader debate, particular constituency anxieties or policy issues. For example, he holds a particular view on drug taking. I do not share his view, but it is important that the House should so construct its legislative processes as to enable such views to be articulated. The effect of the timetable motion, however, is to preclude him from doing so and I deeply regret that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough talked about the importance of the second group of amendments. I agree entirely with the substance of his remarks. He said that it is greatly to be regretted that we are unlikely to

vote on that group. He is probably right and I share his view. However, the vote is not the most important part of the process. The vote is a foregone conclusion in this House today. What is important is the weight and balance of the argument and how many hon. Members express their anxiety about particular parts of the Bill.
It is essential to keep in mind the fact that 18 Labour Back Benchers have put their names to the reasoned amendment against Third Reading. In an ideal world, those hon. Members would be able to express their views as to the reasons they tabled that amendment, because the weight and diversity of opinion is relevant to the question of whether the Bill should make progress. Furthermore, it is extremely relevant to what their lordships' House will want to make of the Bill when it reaches them.
Is there a need for the motion? The argument for there being no need has been eloquently deployed by, for example, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woking. No one has been filibustering the Bill. There were weeks during which this stage of the Bill could have been dealt with and the House could have discussed it at our leisure. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough pointed out, if we had made a clear start at 4 o'clock or half past 4, we would have finished by 10 or 11 o'clock at the latest.
If there is any doubt on that point, the House should bear in mind that we can move closures. There are only four groups of amendments, and the practice—although it is not universal—is to allow closure after two hours of debate.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Three hours.

Mr. Hogg: It varies a bit. In any event, we would have got through the business. There is no need for the motion.
I have two further points of substance. First, there is the question of Members who represent Scottish constituencies. I urge Labour Members not to approve a timetable motion when they will want such Members to go with them into the Lobby. The Bill applies only to England and Wales. What is the propriety of Members who represent Scottish constituencies, who will not be affected by the Bill, voting to guillotine a motion that Members representing English and Welsh constituencies want to debate? Some people would call that a scandal; I do call it a scandal.
Secondly, I hear hon. Members muttering, "Why are you debating the timetable motion and not getting straight to the substantive motion?" That way liberty falls. If it be true that a timetable motion truncates a debate in an improper way—which is my view—then we must say so. If we do not, we will be said to have acquiesced in the process. It will become yet another precedent on which the Government will rely.
The motion is an abuse and it is my duty to say so. The fact that this debate takes time from the substantive motion is part of the blackmail that the Government want to exert on us. It is wrong in principle. At the end of the 1970s, my right hon. and noble Friend, my father, Lord Hailsham, wrote an important article in which he referred to the elective dictatorship. In all seriousness, I tell the House that he was right. Not only was he right then—he is right now. A Government with a massive majority can


do whatever they please—unless their own Back Benchers tell them, "Enough is enough." The hon. and learned Member for Medway has struck out boldly and rightly. I commend him for what he did tonight. I very much hope that at least some of those with whom he sits will follow his example.

Mr. Peter Brooke: It is a privilege to follow my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). On 9 March 1943, I paid my first visit to this Palace and my late, noble father, Lord Brooke, introduced me to Lord Hailsham, the noble father of my right hon. and learned Friend. Ever since, I have been aware of the role of the Hogg family in matters such as we are discussing.
I speak both in anger and in sorrow. I am not a lawyer. I declare that my brother is a lawyer and a senior judge, but I have not discussed the Bill with him. I also declare that I have been a friend of the noble Lord Bingham of Cornhill for nearly half a century. I have not discussed the Bill, in any of its manifestations or in any way, with the noble Lord.
Because I am not a lawyer, I can rely only on my instincts as a citizen. In the previous Parliament, I rebuked one of my right hon. Friends for seeking to end the life of a great hospital after 900 years, by way of a written answer and without direct report to the House. I have the same instinctive unease about the consideration of a right, which the citizens of this country have enjoyed for seven or eight centuries, being drastically amended under a guillotine of five hours of debate during the remaining stages of the Bill. Of course, I acknowledge that the Government have problems with their business programme. The deputy Leader of the House is sitting on the Treasury Bench and can confirm that.
I see almost all life through a filter of cricket. In cricket, the benefit of the doubt is a salient principle, but the right to the benefit of the doubt as regards the Government's programme is necessarily less convincing when two and a half months elapsed between Second Reading and Committee, and even less persuasive when a further seven weeks passed between Committee and the remaining stages. The salience of the business programme as the basis for the benefit of doubt has also been eroded by the substance of the detail revealed in the correspondence that, at a late date, the Government shared with the House.
I said that I spoke in sorrow as well as in anger. I am not privy to the byzantine—indeed Florentine—memorandums that flow between members of the Administration, so I do not know how the decision was made not to announce this guillotine at business questions last Thursday. I am a perennial attender at business questions and have, on other occasions, made clear my respect and my admiration for the Leader of the House. I do not know whether she was aware last Thursday of the Government's tactical intentions in this regard. I recognise the importance of surprise as a military tactic.
However, I regret that the Leader of the House did not come to the Dispatch Box last night in the context of this guillotine. It was not that she was not about this place; I recall passing her in the corridor around about the time of the Government's business motion. She will have to live down her silence last night in her continuing quest for the

House's respect. But the fact that she did not march towards the sound of gunfire in fact increased my unease about these matters, and I support with calmness, but with quiet passion, the opposition of my right hon. and hon. Friends to this timetable motion.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: 1 believe that, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), I am the only person present on the Conservative Benches who is not a lawyer. The Home Secretary should quake at the thought that the lawyers are on the march in the House and are contributing to this debate.
To my constituents, this is one of the few issues that comes before the House that they actually understand. Much of our legislative process is beyond the ken of most of us—indeed, most Members of the House—but this central issue runs through our society, as a beacon, revealing Britain, and particularly England, to be a country of liberty. We do not dispose of these matters lightly and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) said so eloquently, does not each one of us want to express our views on the question of reputation? For many of us in the House, and certainly for those whom I represent, the question of reputation is central to their very standing and sense of themselves; and that that may be disposed of without reference to or the ability to argue that in front of a jury of their fellow citizens is something that cannot be passed away lightly.
I am grateful to the Home Secretary. I believe that he does attend on the House probably more than any other Minister—I make the observation that that reflects the fact that this is the 12th Home Office Bill that has come before the House this Session. When the right hon. Gentleman stood to justify this guillotine— [Interruption]—he justified it by reference to past Administrations. He said that the motion was no more than that which had been passed by other Administrations. I believe that he cited the Administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), in which 17 Bills were guillotined. I just point out that that was over seven years. It is true that Baroness Thatcher guillotined 34 Bills, but that was over more than 11 years.
The record of the present Government is that if the House passes this guillotine motion, this new Labour Executive will have had 38 Bills guillotined. It is on a scale that the House has never seen. It is more than a third of all Bills guillotined since 1945. It is unconscionable, and it represents the only tactic that the present Executive have in controlling the House. It is an instrument—with a vast majority—for ensuring that the House is obedient, because we can no longer express truths that we were sent here to express or have the perception that we were elected here to represent our fellows.
The whole focus of debate in the House must be, surely, to try to turn the opinions of others; to try, by reason, to reach out to them. We make our case, we lose it, but when a huge majority asserts that we may not even make our case, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, where is the legitimacy? Let us be clear, because the matter goes back a long time: a parliamentary majority is not just X divided by two plus one. It is the process—we say this


again and again—by which those in a minority may express, contrary to the view of the majority, that which they hold true; and the coming into effect of the majority's judgment has legitimacy because the majority has exercised the tolerance of allowing people to speak freely.
This motion cuts right to the heart of the very function of the House. It is shaming for a Government with such a huge majority to wheel out such a motion 38 times in order to assert that others may not speak in the House. It is wrong; and that is why the Government should not only he ashamed, but should be hanging their head.
We know what is behind some of this. The muddle of the legislative programme has now become so intense that even the constitution unit at University college has pointed out that something is going wrong at the heart of Government and its own Committees when—as I said, this is the 12th Home Office Bill in one parliamentary Session—there is no constraint on the amount of legislation brought before the House. There have been 2,500-plus pages in this one parliamentary Session. How does one get through the business without silencing Members so that they may not speak on it? It is pathetic legislation that is passed in this way. A guillotine is an instrument of control of the Executive to the disregard of due process and the legitimacy that they seek for the legislative purposes that they believe are essential to good government. We have a right in this House, on behalf of those that sent us here, to express our concern at this process.
I give praise to the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), on the Government's own Back Bench, who raises the banner—because that, in truth, is the question of conscience—and says, "This process is inappropriate." I do not doubt that the Home Secretary himself feels that as well.
We should reject this guillotine motion. I am bemused that Governments constantly table guillotine motions when there has been orderly, rational, intelligent debate, with no endeavour to filibuster—which used to be the traditional reason, when it became intolerable, why Governments, as a very last resort, sought to impose a guillotine. The Government now stand up and say, "All opposition without the time scale that we set is intolerable, and therefore we shall exert our control over the House, through our majority, to deny others the freedom of speech that is the purpose of the House."

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to you, and to the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), for that very vulgar intervention earlier.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand. The House will have heard the interruption; I am not sure that hon. Members identified whence it came, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his apology.

Mr. James Clappison: It is a very great pleasure to follow the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), as indeed it is a pleasure to follow the speeches of other right hon. and hon. Friends who spoke, including my hon.

Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) and for Woking (Mr. Malins), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke).
I follow particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills in the remarks that he made about the guillotine procedure; I want to say a few words about that before I turn to the reasons why this legislation should have more time than it has been allocated under the motion.
Until I heard the reasons that the Home Secretary gave this evening, it was my belief that a guillotine was something that was applied for by Governments in extreme circumstances, when there was evidence that a particular piece of legislation was being resisted, and in order that the Government should get their way—which, as my hon. Friend conceded, is right, but after proper debate. However, having heard the reasons that were advanced by the Home Secretary this evening, it seems clear to me that the ground rules are being continually changed in this process, and always in favour of the Government's limiting debate to the utmost possible.
It would seem that, using the criteria that the Home Secretary gave this evening for applying this guillotine, any piece of legislation could be guillotined. The Home Secretary, in his opening remarks, gave as a reason for the guillotine the fact that the Bill had not been debated for very long—for long enough—in Committee.
The last time I was in the Chamber when the Home Secretary moved a motion to justify a guillotine was on the Bill that became the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Then, according to my recollection, he gave as the reason for applying a guillotine the fact that the Bill had been debated for too long in Committee—not that that was a matter of complaint at the time the Bill was actually being debated in Committee, because the Home Secretary put a written answer in Hansard shortly afterwards, saying how constructive and helpful debate in Committee had been. None the less, and in short order, he imposed a guillotine on the Bill.
The Home Secretary referred to other Bills. However, as we have heard, there is no evidence that this Bill has been the subject of untoward debate or anything approaching it during its progress through the House. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster pointed out, there was a gap of about two months between Second Reading and Committee. The Bill came out of Committee on 6 June and there have been any number of occasions since then—at least four to my knowledge—when the House has risen early in the evening and it would have been possible to debate the Bill. However, the Government made no move to debate the Bill on any of those occasions, or to interpose the Bill in their programme at any other time to give it proper consideration.
I was here, for instance, on the evening of 26 June when we debated the Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) was present on that occasion and both sides of the House agreed that it was a short and straightforward measure. It even had the benefit of the in-depth scrutiny of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) but, even after that scrutiny, the House rose at 5.58 pm. That


debate took place a reasonable time after the Bill had left Committee and—if one can use the phrase—it was the normal time for such a Bill to have its Report stage. However, the Government decided not to debate this Bill on that day or at any other time since then. The biggest obstacle to its progress has been the Government's dilatoriness in providing time to debate it. There is no evidence that obstacles have been created during the House's deliberations on this Bill.
The Home Secretary's justification for the motion is not satisfactory. It will open the door to the guillotining of every Bill. However, there are three reasons why we particularly need more time to debate this Bill than the Government are prepared to give it. First, this is piece of criminal justice legislation and the House has traditionally taken the view that issues affecting the liberty of the subject and criminal justice should be tackled in a particular way. I served on the proceedings on the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and I recall how those Bills were often debated in a non-partisan fashion in Committee and on the Floor of the House. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Woking brought the benefit of their technical expertise to bear.
This Bill is a departure from the previous approach to criminal justice Bills. Figures on the number of Bills that have been guillotined under this Government and in the previous Parliament have been bandied about and it is a fair point to say that some Bills were guillotined in the previous Parliament—but not so many as in this Parliament. Furthermore, I do not remember a criminal justice Bill being guillotined in the previous Parliament, the first Parliament in which I served. If I am wrong, the Home Secretary will correct me. However, I believe that this is a new experience.
It has been pointed out in the debate why the Home Secretary and the House should take particular care with the technical aspects of this Bill. It will be a great shame if we do not reach the second group of amendments and debate whether someone's reputation should be taken into account when determining whether he has the right to elect for trial by jury. That is an important issue in itself.
I also believe that the Bill's drafting means that its purpose is likely to be self-defeating. The Government and the Prime Minister said that one of the reasons for introducing it was a desire to reduce abuses of the system by experienced defendants. However, it seems from the Bill that experienced defendants who have been before the courts before will be most likely in practice to be able to elect for trial by jury.
The Bill says that magistrates must take into account the circumstances of the offence and not the reputation of the offender. It is thus likely that magistrates will consider the most serious offences to have the most pressing call to be dealt with in the Crown court in a trial by jury. It is a fact of life that experienced criminals commit the most serious offences. Therefore, in practice, experienced defendants who know the system and who commit the most serious offences will appear before the magistrates courts and gain the benefit of the provisions in the Bill.
As has been ably pointed out by my hon. Friends the Members for Woking and for Gainsborough, the person who is most likely to lose out under the Bill is the man of previous good character—or nearly good character—who commits a lesser offence but for whom the allegation

is important and likely seriously to affect his reputation in the future. The allegation could affect his reputation at work and in the neighbourhood, the reputation of his family, and his own self-esteem. It could possibly have consequences for the rest of his life.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: I apologise for intervening, because I have only recently come into the debate. However, as there is a wide variation in sentencing between different Crown court centres, will the hon. Gentleman tell us how on earth we will achieve, under this ridiculous new system, uniformity of appeal procedures as between Crown court centres?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. He will be as disappointed as I am to see that the appeals process will be considered in the fourth group of amendments—the group least likely to be debated. I know that the Home Secretary sets particular store by the appeals process, so it is a shame that we will not have an opportunity to test in debate his arguments for that process. Many people in the legal profession, including the hon. Gentleman, are worried about the complexity of the process and the time that it will cause to be lost in the courts system, delaying cases with all the expense and inconvenience that will result. That is another issue that we shall not have sufficient time to debate.
The position of the man in the street in respect of the appeals process are issues that should be debated at length. I should have declared my interest as a member of the Bar at the beginning of my speech, but as I said on Second Reading, I feel strongly about the position of the man in the street. He will not face the serious allegations that will entitle him to a trial by jury, but may face allegations that may matter to him a great deal. He will not be able to turn up at the magistrates court with expensive solicitors and expensive counsel—I mean no disrespect to anyone present—with the impression that they would create. There will be interest in the cases of business men, famous people and celebrities and they will turn up at the magistrates court with their expensive counsel, who will be armed with all the legal arguments. Under the proposed system, such people will have the right to elect for trial by jury in a Crown court if they want it. The ordinary man in the street will not have that opportunity; he will lose out. I hope that I have made that point clearly, because I feel strongly about it.
The second reason for having more time to debate the Bill is its history in the House of Lords. The reasons for curtailing the debate sit uneasily with what the Government have said about the House of Lords. It has been partially reformed because the Government have got rid of some, if not all, of the hereditary element. The Government believe that that gives the House of Lords a more legitimate voice and they have also conceded that the other place's purpose, as a second Chamber, is to give this House an opportunity to think again about particular pieces of legislation.
This Bill came before the House of Lords and was defeated there. It was withdrawn and then reintroduced in this House—albeit with amendments. However, if debate on Report—the first opportunity that Members who were not on the Committee have to debate amendments to the Bill—is curtailed to just five hours, what does that say about our system of government and the way the


Government think about the constitution? It looks as if they are prepared to railroad the Bill through, whatever the House of Lords, this House or anyone else thinks.
I now come to my third reason for thinking that the Government need to give the Bill more time. It is for the Government themselves to justify the course that they are taking on trial by jury. Today, the Home Secretary sought to justify the Government's course by referring to the views of the former Lord Chief Justice. I do not want to go into that any further, but the Home Secretary owes the House and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) an explanation—indeed more of an explanation than we have heard so far. I shall not pursue that, but want to deal with the other great support that the Government prayed in aid, namely, the views of the royal commission which the Prime Minister, as well as the Home Secretary, said were among the main reasons for introducing the Bill.
At Question Time on 5 July, the Prime Minister said:
The mode of trial legislation was recommended by a royal commission, it is supported by the Lord Chief Justice, it will hugely increase the efficiency of the criminal justice system.—[Official Report, 5 July 2000; Vol. 353, c. 330.]
The Prime Minister therefore gave three reasons for supporting the Bill. We have already heard about the views of the former Lord Chief Justice, but I shall deal with the other two reasons. It is very well for the Home Secretary—and the Prime Minister on an earlier occasion—to have prayed in aid the views of the royal commission, and it was right for the royal commission to express its views—although, as we have heard, an eminent member, Mr. Zander, has since departed. However, what did the Prime Minister and the Labour party itself say about the views of the royal commission when its report came out? We will require a little more time to debate that, and would like an explanation of the view expressed by the then shadow Home Secretary to The Guardian, The Times and The Daily Telegraph. in 1993. An article in The Guardian stated:
It is totally unsatisfactory to leave the decision on the right to a jury trial to magistrates, " Mr. Blair said. "Fundamental rights to justice cannot be driven by administrative convenience.
So when he was shadow Home Secretary, the Prime Minister reacted in that way to the royal commission, which he is now praying in aid for the Bill. However, in those remarks, he clearly disposes of two of the principal arguments that are being made now—namely, the questions of whether it is a matter of principle that people should elect trial by jury, and of whether that is the best way of speeding up the court system. The Home Secretary owes it to the House to say a little more about why the Prime Minister expressed those views at the time.
The Home Secretary also owes it to the House to say a little more about the views that he expressed at the time of the Narey review, which he prayed in aid as another support for the Bill. He will remember that, in February 1997, when the Narey commission reported, he said that the proposal to cut down the right to jury trial, which is what the Bill amounts to, was
wrong … short—sighted. and likely to prove ineffective.
He also said:
If a police officer, a Member of Parliament or even a Secretary of State were charged with an offence of dishonesty, would they not insist on being tried by a jury? If that is the case, why should others be denied that right of election?—[Official Report, 27 February 1997; Vol. 238, c. 433-34.]

The Home Secretary should spend a little time explaining what has changed since then.
The change is not that there will be a right of appeal under the Bill, as that was part of the Narey review. Indeed, in 1997, the Home Secretary made his remarks on the basis that there was a right of appeal in the legislation that he was discussing. The Home Secretary is shaking his head, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who has taken a consistent line throughout, said quite clearly that there might need to be a right of appeal. Indeed, if the Home Secretary looks at col. 430 of Hansard for 27 February 1997, he will find that a right of appeal was mentioned.
What has made this difference to the Home Secretary's view? What circumstance has changed, and what has the Home Secretary become aware of now that he was not aware of in 1997? We need some time to debate that, and I hope that the Home Secretary will shortly have the opportunity to do that, as he owes it to the House to say a little more about why the Government are taking that course on a fundamental civil liberty. The Government need time to do that: to deal with the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Medway and the question of reputation; and to explain the history of the Bill and the reason it has been brought to the House in a particular way. Frankly, time is needed if the Home Secretary is to try and save the Government's reputation on civil liberties.
I am a reader of The Guardian, and, as it said, civil liberty is this Government's poor relation; indeed, it is being trampled underfoot at great speed without sufficient justification. Government Members need to do more than harrumph, as they did a moment ago, and they must come up with better and more cogent reasons than they have so far.
A noticeable feature of our debate is that not a single speaker on either side of the house, whether from the Liberal Democrat party, the official Opposition or the Government Back Benches, has sought to support the course that the Government are taking in the Bill. The Government need to do much better in seeking to defend the Bill because, so far, they do not have a leg to stand on. They look as if they are prepared to use their majority just to drive through a damaging piece of legislation that will affect the civil liberties of the ordinary man in the street. They could not care less about parliamentary procedure, the views of the House, or anybody outside it.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: This has been one of the best debates that I have heard in my eight years in this House, although I except from that description the Home Secretary's opening speech. He began by trying to justify at great length his Second Reading speech, and to deal with the fact that the researches of the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) on the former Lord Chief Justice have blown his gaff. The Home Secretary's speech was convoluted, disingenuous and wrong.
In other speeches, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), we heard something of the history of trial by jury, and the fact that it goes back to mediaeval times. The House will recall that in mediaeval times, theologians used to debate the


idea of angels dancing on the head of a pin, which was rather like the sophistry that we have heard from the Home Secretary tonight. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made clear in his thoughtful speech, the real opposition is to be found behind the Home Secretary, on the Government Benches. My hon. Friend was quite right to draw attention to the fact that not a single Government Back Bencher could be found to speak in support of the timetable motion or the guillotine procedure. The two speeches from Government Back Benchers both attacked the Home Secretary, as has every other Member who has spoken.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garner) dismantled comprehensively the Home Secretary's specious arguments on this Session's first Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, which the Home Secretary sought to pretend had been stopped in this House, even though he, like everyone else, knows that the Government chose to introduce it in another place, where it was stopped in its tracks, as this Bill will be when it gets there. My hon. and learned Friend pointed out that the Home Secretary was wrong in what he said about the Disqualifications Bill, which has not been proceeded with as a result of the Government's decisions in another place, and he dismantled comprehensively the Home Secretary's arguments about the Football (Disorder) Bill. The points that the Home Secretary sought to make were all specious.
The first attack on the guillotine motion came from the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn). Ingeniously, he attacked the Government for failing to provide enough time in this debate to consider the role of juries that fail to convict when the facts of the case might support a conviction. I often disagree with the hon. Member on his underlying arguments, but I agree with his criticism of the Government on the timetable motion. In a powerful speech, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) pointed out that at the election the proposals were opposed, both specifically and in general terms, by the present Home Secretary and Prime Minister, as well as by everybody else in the Labour party. The Home Secretary himself set out his strong personal opposition, in the terms of which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has just reminded the House.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey used the cogent argument that, both with the ill-fated Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill [Lords] and the present Bill, the Government chose all the procedural stages that they went through. They could have given time for proper debate at any of those stages, including tonight.
The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that the then Labour Opposition included their opposition to these proposals in their 1997 general election manifesto. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) tried, quite wrongly, to deny his collective responsibility; he was on the Opposition Front Bench in the run-up to that election, but one would not have thought so from his intervention on the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey.
The hon. Gentleman then pointed out the lack of a need for urgency with these proposals. The Government have set up the review by Lord Justice Auld to consider possible changes to criminal procedure, so as the hon. Gentleman said, why not wait? He made a series of unanswerable points, including the most crucial point of

all, which so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have reinforced—the fact that trial by jury is a fundamental civil right for all citizens.
The hon. and learned Member for Medway is one of the most distinguished members of the Bar whom I have ever had the privilege to hear, and he was a member of the same circuit as myself—I declare my past interest as somebody who conducted many jury trials in my early years at the Bar. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke in particular on the views of the former Lord Chief Justice and the senior judiciary. If I may so put it, he comprehensively disembowelled the Home Secretary's utterly contemptible attempt to reinterpret his own remarks to the House so as to avoid the hook on which the hon. and learned Gentleman and The Guardian have impaled him for his terminological inexactitude on Second Reading.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) set out why the Bill needs proper time, and why we need time to point out all the misconceived reasons behind the Government's change of heart. The Home Secretary, the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister took up their offices and immediately rejected all their previous strongly held views on the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), as usual, made a powerful speech—one of the most powerful that the House has heard this evening. He pointed out how the Home Secretary had severely damaged his reputation with this guillotine. My hon. Friend's experience of the Committee proceedings on the Bill enabled him to point out how wrong the guillotine is. He said that, as we know, the real reason for it lies on the Government side of the House, and the reasoned amendment signed by so many of the Home Secretary's colleagues demonstrates that beyond peradventure. My hon. Friend also made it clear how horrified the judiciary would be by this curtailment of debate, and that factor is crucial.
My hon. Friend asked the relevant question: why are Members of Parliament here? He anticipated the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) about an elective dictatorship, and I feel strongly that that is the correct way to describe the Government's arrogant behaviour. The timetable motion is a paradigm showing what the Government regard with contempt: the House, parliamentary traditions and English civil liberties. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking went on to stress how increasingly authoritarian the Government are, and he was right to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough put forward his own interesting approach to timetabling issues. He set out his experience of the sensible Committee proceedings on the Bill, and the historical perspective that we need to have. In response to the intervention from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough, my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough made clear the need for simple justice. He described the problems that the Government will have in another place because of the timetable motion and their attitude to the Bill—they now have egg on their face.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham concentrated on the fact that the Government's guillotine is denying Labour Members


the opportunity to ask questions about today's revelations concerning the true position of the former Lord Chief Justice and the inexactitude of the Home Secretary's speech on Second Reading. My right hon. and learned Friend also pointed out the need for analysis of the nuts and bolts issues on Report—the first time that the House can perform that analysis. He stressed the crucial need for our debates, rather than our votes, to inform another place, and the need to debate arbitrary guillotines rather than falling prey to Government blackmail.
My right hon. and learned Friend concluded by referring to his father, the right hon. and noble Lord Hailsham, the former Lord Chancellor, and his important article on the dangers of elective dictatorship.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) used a happy cricketing analogy, with which I agree, about the need for the benefit of the doubt, but he rightly expressed concern about the byzantine and Florentine memorandums that pass between Ministers. He pointed out the unease about the failure of the Leader of the House to come to the Dispatch Box last night to attempt to justify this outrageous last-minute guillotine.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who spoke as powerfully as he always does, is an admirable guardian of the traditions of the House and the real liberties of the subject. He talked about the need for proper debate, and the need to allow a case to be made. He pointed out that it is shaming for the Government, with their huge majority, to have wheeled out a guillotine 38 times in only a fraction over three years. He said that they were guilty of disregard for due process. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere, whose speech I have already referred to, also set out many of the problems that he has with what the Government are doing.
If any jury had sat in judgment on this Government and the Home Secretary's guillotine proposals, and had to decide whether the Government were guilty of intolerance, of arbitrariness, of arrogance, of contempt for the House, of stifling debate and opposition and, above all, of being wrong, it would decide that they were guilty as charged on every count. I urge all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote against the Government and support our amendment.

Mr. Straw: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will respond to the debate. The last remarks of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) show that he has a flawed understanding of the jury system. He thinks that there should be a guilty as charged system, whereby the prosecution brings in the verdict. We look forward to the further development of that idea.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made some hyperbolic remarks about the Government's subscription to civil liberties. I remind him that the Government have introduced two measures that will make a huge difference to civil liberties—measures that the Governments whom he supported failed to introduce. The first is the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill, which I hope will shortly become law, and the second is the Human Rights Act 1998, which is already law and is due

to come into force on 2 October. That shows that the balance of our approach is to strengthen the civil liberties of the individual and at the same time to seek to ensure that the criminal justice system, while continuing to be just, is more efficient and effective than it has been in the past. Although I had to leave the Chamber very briefly, I understand that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said that he accepted that the present system was being abused—and that is the truth of it.
I come to the central point raised by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and the hon. Members for Woking (Mr. Malins) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd)—that the guillotine motion is somehow an abuse of process. I have already said that I do not like guillotine motions. It is palpable that I have always sought to ensure that debate proceeds properly.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) cannot have it both ways. It is the job of this House and of the other place to dispose of the legislative proposals that are before them. I do not think that there has ever been a piece of legislation that has not been improved as a result of the legislative process; that is the job of this House. Given that, the hon. Gentleman cannot complain about the fact that the Bill has finally emerged in an improved form. Of course that is always the case; that is exactly as it should be. It would surely be an arrogant Government, whatever their majority, who sought to render the role of this House entirely nugatory by never being willing to listen to proposals to improve legislation. Making such proposals is the role of this House.
I return to the issue of guillotines. I served on the Opposition Front Bench in one capacity or another for sixteen and a half years—

Mr. Hogg: Not long enough.

Mr. Straw: My father was not in the other place at the same time.
During the 1980s there were many occasions on which I took part, with the same hyperbolic anger, in debates on guillotines—

Mr. Stephen Day: Not as regularly.

Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the chart, he will see that in the 1988–89 Session, for example, there were 13 guillotine motions—including, I say to the hon. Member for Hertsmere, three in respect of criminal justice; one was the Official Secrets Bill. At that stage, our tactic in opposition was to string things out as far as possible. Gradually, we learned, and in the 1990s there was a high degree of co-operation between Opposition and Government, which I thought was to the advantage of both Houses.
The truth of what has happened—it is on the record—is that it is currently virtually impossible to achieve agreement with the Opposition about any progress on any Bill. On one issue after another, even when they support the Bill, they cannot deliver their own side to vote for a sensible programme. It is for that reason, in sorrow not in anger, that we have tabled the motion.

Question put, That the amendment be made;—

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 311.

Division No. 289]
[8.51 pm

AYES

Allan, Richard
Hammond, Philip

Amess, David
Harris, Dr Evan

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Harvey, Nick

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Hawkins, Nick

Baker, Norman
Hayes, John

Baldry, Tony
Heald, Oliver

Ballard, Jackie
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Beggs, Roy
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Beth, Rt Hon A J
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Horam, John

Bercow, John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Blunt, Crispin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Boswell, Tim
Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Brake, Tom
Jenkin, Bernard

Brand, Dr Peter
Keetch, Paul

Brazier, Julian
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Breed, Colin


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Key, Robert

Browning, Mrs Angela
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Kirkwood, Archy

Burnett, John
Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Burns, Simon
Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Burstow, Paul
Lansley, Andrew

Butterfill, John
Leigh, Edward

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)
Letwin, Oliver


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Cash, William
Lidington, David

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Livsey, Richard

Clappison, James
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Loughton, Tim

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Luff, Peter

Collins, Tim
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Cormack, Sir Patrick
MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Cotter, Brian
McIntosh, Miss Anne

Cran, James
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Curry, Rt Hon David
Mackinlay, Andrew

Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Maclean, Rt Hon David

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
McLoughlin, Patrick

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Madel, Sir David

Duncan Smith, Iain
Malins, Humfrey

Evans, Nigel
Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Faber, David
May, Mrs Theresa

Fabricant, Michael
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Fallon, Michael
Moore, Michael

Fearn, Ronnie
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Flight, Howard
Nicholls, Patrick

Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Oaten, Mark

Foster, Don (Bath)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Fox, Dr Liam
Ottaway, Richard

Fraser, Christopher
Paterson, Owen

Gale, Roger
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Garnier, Edward
Prior, David

George, Andrew (St Ives)
Randall, John

Gibb, Nick
Redwood, Rt Hon John

Gidley, Sandra
Rendel, David

Gill, Christopher
Robathan, Andrew

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Robertson, Laurence

Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Gorrie, Donald
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

Gray, James
Ruffley, David

Green, Damian
Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Grieve, Dominic
St Aubyn, Nick

Gummer, Rt Hon John
Sanders, Adrian

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian




Shepherd, Richard
Townend, John

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Tredinnick, David

Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Trend, Michael

Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Tyler, Paul

Spicer, Sir Michael
Tyrie, Andrew

Spring, Richard
Viggers, Peter

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waterson, Nigel

Steen, Anthony
Webb, Steve

Streeter, Gary
Wells, Bowen

Swayne, Desmond
Whitney, Sir Raymond

Syms, Robert
Willis, Phil

Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilshire, David

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Taylor, Sir Teddy
Tellers for the Ayes:

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Mr. Stephen Day and

Tonge, Dr Jenny
Mr. Peter Atkinson.



NOES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clelland, David

Ainger, Nick
Clwyd, Ann

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Coaker, Vernon

Alexander, Douglas
Coffey, Ms Ann

Allen, Graham
Cohen, Harry

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Coleman, Iain

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Colman, Tony

Ashton, Joe
Connarty, Michael

Atherton, Ms Candy
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Atkins, Charlotte
Corbett, Robin

Austin, John
Corston, Jean

Banks, Tony
Crausby, David

Barnes, Harry
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Barron, Kevin
Cummings, John

Bayley, Hugh
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Beard, Nigel


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Bennett, Andrew F
Datyell, Tam

Benton, Joe
Darvill, Keith

Berry, Roger
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Blackman, Liz
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Blears, Ms Hazel


Blizzard, Bob
Dawson, Hilton

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dean, Mrs Janet

Borrow, David
Denham, John

Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dismore, Andrew

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dobbin, Jim

Bradshaw, Ben
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Brinton, Mrs Helen
Donohoe, Brian H

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Doran, Frank


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Buck, Ms Karen
Edwards, Huw

Burden, Richard
Efford, Clive

Burgon, Colin
Ellman, Mrs Louise

Butler, Mrs Christine
Ennis, Jeff

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Field, Rt Hon Frank

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Campbell-Savours, Dale
Flint, Caroline

Cann, Jamie
Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Casale, Roger
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Caton, Martin
Foulkes, George

Cawsey, Ian
Fyfe, Maria

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Chaytor, David
Gerrard, Neil

Chisholm, Malcolm
Gibson, Dr Ian

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Godman, Dr Norman A

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Godsiff, Roger

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Goggins, Paul

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Golding, Mrs Llin

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen





Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McNulty, Tony

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
MacShane, Denis

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mactaggart, Fiona

Grocott, Bruce
McWalter, Tony

Grogan, John
Mallaber, Judy

Gunnell, John
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Martlew, Eric

Hanson, David
Meale, Alan

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Merron, Gillian

Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Healey, John
Miller, Andrew

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Moffatt, Laura

Hepburn, Stephen
Moonie, Dr Lewis

Heppell, John
Moran, Ms Margaret

Hesford, Stephen
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Hill, Keith
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Hinchliffe, David
Morley, Elliot

Home Robertson, John
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Hope, Phil
Moms, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Mountford, Kali

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mudie, George

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Humble, Mrs Joan
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Hurst, Alan
Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hutton, John
Norris, Dan

Iddon, Dr Brian
O'Hara, Eddie

Illsley, Eric
Olner, Bill

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Organ, Mrs Diana

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Osborne, Ms Sandra

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Palmer, Dr Nick

Jamieson, David
Pearson, Ian

Jenkins, Brian
Pendry, Tom

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Perham, Ms Linda

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pickthall, Colin


Pike, Peter L

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
Plaskitt, James

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Pollard, Kerry

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pond, Chris

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pope, Greg


Pound, Stephen

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Powell, Sir Raymond

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Keeble, Ms Sally
Prescott, Rt Hon John

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Primarolo, Dawn

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prosser, Gwyn

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Purchase, Ken

Khabra, Piara S
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Quinn, Lawrie

Kumar, Dr Ashok
Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rapson, Syd

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Raynsford, Nick

Laxton, Bob
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Lepper, David
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Leslie, Christopher
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Levitt, Tom
Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rogers, Allan

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Rooney, Terry

Linton, Martin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Rowlands, Ted

Lock, David
Roy, Frank

Love, Andrew
Roane, Chris

McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan

McCabe, Steve
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McDonagh, Siobhain
Ryan, Ms Joan

Macdonald, Calum
Salter, Martin

McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sarwar, Mohammad

McIsaac, Shona
Savidge, Malcolm

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sawford, Phil

Mackinlay, Andrew
Shaw, Jonathan

McNamara, Kevin
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert




Shipley, Ms Debra (Oxford E)
Todd, Mark

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew
Touhig, Don

Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Trickett, Jon

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Tynan, Bill

Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Vis, Dr Rudi

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Walley, Ms Joan

Snape, Peter
Wareing, Robert N

Soley, Clive
Watts, David

Southworth, Ms Helen
White, Brian

Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Whitehead, Dr Alan

Steinberg, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm

Stevenson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Stinchcombe, Paul
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Stoate, Dr Howard
Wills, Michael

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wilson, Brian

Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Winnick, David

Stringer, Graham
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Sutcliffe, Gerry
Woodward, Shaun

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Woolas, Phil


Worthington, Tony

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wray, James

Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Temple-Morris, Peter
Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Wyatt, Derek

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Tellers for the Noes:

Timms, Stephen
Mr. Clive Betts and

Tipping, Paddy
Mr. Jim Dowd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 180.

Division No. 290]
[9.3 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Buck, Ms Karen

Ainger, Nick
Burden, Richard

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Burgon, Colin

Alexander, Douglas
Butler, Mrs Christine

Allen, Graham
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Campbell-Savours, Dale

Ashton, Joe
Cann, Jamie

Atherton, Ms Candy
Caplin, Ivor

Atkins, Charlotte
Casale, Roger

Austin, John
Caton, Martin

Banks, Tony
Cawsey, Ian

Barnes, Harry
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Barron, Kevin
Chaytor, David

Bayley, Hugh
Chisholm, Malcolm

Beard, Nigel
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Begg, Miss Anne


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Bennett, Andrew F
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Benton, Joe
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Berry, Roger
Clelland, David

Blackman, Liz
Clwyd, Ann

Blears, Ms Hazel
Coaker, Vernon

Blizzard, Bob
Coffey, Ms Ann

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Cohen, Harry

Borrow, David
Coleman, Iain

Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Colman, Tony

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Connarty, Michael

Bradshaw, Ben
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Brinton, Mrs Helen
Corbett, Robin

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Corston, Jean


Crausby, David

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Cummings, John





Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, RT Hon Barry (Alyn)

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Darvill, Keith
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jones, Marlin (Clyde S)


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Dawson, Hilton
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Dean, Mrs Janet
Keeble, Ms Sally

Denham, John
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Hesston)

Dismore, Andrew
Keen, Ann (Brantford & Isle worth)

Dobbin, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Khabra, Piara S

Donohoe, Brian H
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Doran, Frank
Kumar, Dr Ashok

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Layman, Dr Stephen

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Edwards, Huw
Laxton, Bob

Efford, Clive
Lepper, David

Ellman, Mrs Louise
Leslie, Christopher

Ennis, Jeff
Leavitt, Tom

Field, Rt Hon Frank
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Flint, Caroline
Liddell, Rat Hon Mrs Helen

Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Linton, Martin

Foster, Michael Jabez
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lock, David

Foulkes, George
Love, Andrew

Fyfe, Maria
McAvoy, Thomas

George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McCabe, Steve

Gerrard, Neil
McDonough, Siobhain

Gibson, Dr Ian
Macdonald, Calum

Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McGuire, Mrs Anne

Godman, Dr Norman A
McIssac, Shona

Godsiff, Roger
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Goggins, Paul
McNamara, Kevin

Golding, Mrs Llin
McNulty, Tony

Gordon, Mrs Eileen
MacShane, Denis

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mactaggart, Fiona

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McWalter, Tony

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mallaber, Judy

Grocott, Bruce
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Grogan, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Gunnell, John
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Martlew, Eric

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Meale, Alan

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Merron, Gillian

Hanson, David
Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Miller, Andrew

Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Moffatt, Laura

Healey, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Moran, Ms Margaret

Hepburn, Stephen
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Heppell, John
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Hesford, Stephen
Morley, Elliot

Hill, Keith
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hinchliffe, David


Home Robertson, John
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Hope, Phil
Mountford, Kali

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

Hoyle, Lindsay
Mudie, George

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Humble, Mrs Joan
Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hurst, Alan
Norris, Dan

Hutton, John
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Iddon, Dr Brian
Olner, Bill

Illsley, Eric
Organ, Mrs Diana

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Osborne, Ms Sandra

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Palmer, Dr Nick

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Pearson, Ian

Jamieson, David
Pendry, Tom

Jenkins, Brian
Perham, Ms Linda

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pickthall, Colin




Pike, Peter L
Stevenson, George

Plaskitt, James
Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Pollard, Kerry
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Pond, Chris
Stinchcombe, Paul

Pope, Greg
Stoate, Dr Howard

Pound, Stephen
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stringer, Graham

Prescott, Rt Hon John
Sutcliffe, Gerry

Primarolo, Dawn
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Prosser, Gwyn


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Quinn, Lawrie
Temple-Morris, Peter

Rapson, Syd
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Raynsford, Nick
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Timms, Stephen

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Tipping, Paddy

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Todd, Mark

Roche, Mrs Barbara
Touhig, Don

Rogers, Allan
Trickett, Jon

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Rooney, Terry
Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Rowlands, Ted
Tynan, Bill

Roy, Frank
Vis, Dr Rudi

Ruane, Chris
Walley, Ms Joan

Ruddock, Joan
Wareing, Robert N

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Watts, David

Ryan, Ms Joan
White, Brian

Salter, Martin
Whitehead, Dr Alan

Sarwar, Mohammad
Wicks, Malcolm

Savidge, Malcolm
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Sawford, Phil


Shaw, Jonathan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Shipley, Ms Debra
Wills, Michael

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Wilson, Brian

Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Winnick, David

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Woodward, Shaun


Woolas, Phil

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Worthington, Tony

Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wray, James

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Snape, Peter
Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Soley, Clive


Southworth, Ms Helen
Tellers for the Ayes:

Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Mr. Clive Betts and

Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Jim Dowd.



NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Allan, Richard
Burnett, John

Amess, David
Burns, Simon

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Burstow, Paul

Ashdown, Rt Hon
Butterfill, John

Paddy Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Baker, Norman


Baldry, Tony
Cash, William

Ballard, Jackie
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Beggs, Roy


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clappison, James

Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Bercow, John
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Beresford, Sir Paul
Collins, Tim

Blunt, Crispin
Corbyn, Jeremy

Boswell, Tim
Cormack, Sir Patrick

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Cotter, Brian

Brake, Tom
Gran, James

Brand, Dr Peter
Curry, Rt Hon David

Brazier, Julian
Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Breed, Colin
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Browning, Mrs Angela
Duncan Smith, Iain

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, Nigel




Ewing, Mrs MargaretMcLoughlin, Patrick
Faber, DavidMadel, Sir David
Fabricant, MichaelMalins, Humfrey
Fallon, MichaelMarshall-Andrews, Robert
Fearn, RonnieMaude, Rt Hon Francis
Fisher, MarkMawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Flight, HowardMay, Mrs Theresa
Flynn, PaulMichie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Forth, Rt Hon EricMoore, Michael
Foster, Don (Bath)Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Fox, Dr LiamMoss, Malcolm
Fraser, ChristopherNicholls, Patrick
Gale, RogerOaten, Mark
Garnier, EdwardO'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
George, Andrew (St Ives)Öpik, Lembit
Gibb, NickOttaway, Richard
Gidley, SandraPaterson, Owen
Gill, ChristopherPortillo, Rt Hon Michael
Gillan, Mrs CherylPrior, David
Gorman, Mrs TeresaRandall, John
Gorrie, DonaldRedwood, Rt Hon John
Gray, JamesBendel, David
Green, DamianRobathan, Andrew
Greenway, JohnRobertson, Laurence
Grieve, DominicRoe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Gummer, Rt Hon JohnRowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir ArchieRuffley, David
Hammond, PhilipRussell, Bob (Colchester)
Harris, Dr EvanSt Aubyn, Nick
Harvey, NickSanders, Adrian
Hawkins, NickSedgemore, Brian
Hayes, JohnShephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Heald, OliverShepherd, Richard
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon DavidSkinner, Dennis
Hogg, Rt Hon DouglasSpelman, Mrs Caroline
Hopkins, KelvinSpicer, Sir Michael
Horam, JohnSpring, Richard
Howard, Rt Hon MichaelStanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)Steen, Anthony
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)Streeter, Gary
Jack, Rt Hon MichaelSwayne, Desmond
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)Syms, Robert
Jenkin, BernardTapsell, Sir Peter
Keetch, PaulTaylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Key, RobertTaylor, Sir Teddy
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Kirkbride, Miss JulieTownend, John
Kirkwood, ArchyTredinnick, David
Laing, Mrs EleanorTrend, Michael
Lait, Mrs JacquiTyler, Paul
Lansley, AndrewTyrie, Andrew
Leigh, EdwardViggers, Peter
Letwin, OliverWaterson, Nigel
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)Webb, Steve
Lidington, DavidWells, Bowen
Lilley, Rt Hon PeterWhitney, Sir Raymond
Livsey, RichardWillis, Phil
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)Wilshire, David
Loughton, TimWinterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Luff, PeterWinterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)
LyeIl, Rt Hon Sir NicholasYeo, Tim
McDonnell, JohnYoung, Rt Hon Sir George
MacGregor, Rt Hon John
McIntosh, Miss AnneTellers for the Noes:
MacKay, Rt Hon AndrewSir Robert Smith
Maclean, Rt Hon Davidand Mr. Stephen Day.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill—

TIMETABLE

1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill shall be completed at today's sitting and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion five hours after the commencement of proceedings on this Motion.

QUESTIONS TO BE PUT

2.—(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing proceedings on the Bill to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.

(2) The Speaker shall put forthwith the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.

(3) On a Motion made for a new Clause or Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(4) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put under sub-paragraph (2)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

MISCELLANEOUS

3. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply at today's sitting to proceedings to which this Order applies.

4. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

5. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill.

6. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

7.—(1) This paragraph applies if—
(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) has been stood over to Seven o'clock; and
(b) proceedings on this Motion have begun before then.

(2) The bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time, shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

8. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to the Bill.

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDERS

9. The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

10. If at today's sitting the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered, pursuant to Order [this day].

New Clause 3

COMMITTAL FOR SENTENCE

'. The following shall be inserted after subsection (1) of section 38 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (committal for sentence on summary trial of offence triable either way)—
(1A) Provided that where the court has previously decided under section 20 above that an offence ought to be tried summarily it shall not then use its powers under this section in respect of the same offence.".'.—[Mr. Kidney.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. David Kidney: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 12, in clause 1, page 2, line 5, at end insert—
'( ) The court shall not, in the event of a conviction, be permitted to commit the accused to the Crown Court for sentence.'.

Mr. Kidney: I call new clause 3 the Scottish amendment. In current Scots law, a class of case exists whereby the accused can be denied a trial by jury through the decision of the prosecutor, not the court. The quid pro quo is that the accused knows that, if convicted and sentenced, the maximum sentence cannot exceed three months' imprisonment. There is therefore a cap, about which the accused, the court and the prosecutor—who determines the court that will deal with the trial—know in advance.
The Bill takes a step towards the Scottish system, but does not go the full distance. It proposes that magistrates should make the decision about whether the accused can be tried by jury or whether he will have to be tried in the magistrates court. However, it does not change the law that provides that the magistrates, after convicting, could send the accused to the Crown court to receive a longer sentence than that which the magistrates can impose—a maximum of six months for one case. The new clause attempts to create a closer relationship between decisions made in England and Wales and those made in Scotland about trial and sentencing occurring in the same place.
I declare an interest because I am a former solicitor with 20 years' experience in criminal cases. However, I do not currently practise and I have no interest in criminal law other than that of a legislator and citizen. I fall into the category of hon. Members whom my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary described earlier as those who are opposed in principle to the Bill. In fact, I object to the entire Bill, but, in tabling the new clause, I resort to a minor principle of honesty in sentencing. I am supported in that by an editorial in The Times on 25 February. In considering the second Bill, not the original measure, it referred to the danger of people being forced to be tried

in the magistrates court against their wishes and being sent to the Crown court for sentencing. The editorial states:
It remains unfair for a person to risk a long sentence without benefit of a full trial.
In making the change to the law, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary enjoys the support of most of the police. I have a briefing from the Police Superintendents Association of England and Wales, which was issued in April. I presume that other hon. Members also have a copy. It states that we should all support the Home Secretary's endeavours to "cut the wastage" in the criminal justice system. I am not sure whether the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers believe that a jury trial constitutes "wastage" in the system. However, my right hon. Friend might agree with the following claim by the association:
In further restricting the right of some defendants to elect trial he will go a long way to removing the abuse of the system that many criminals, and some in the legal profession, perpetrate daily in our courts.
I could stomach such prejudice if abuses such as overcharging the accused, dropping cases and reducing charges at the last minute were also mentioned. Nevertheless, I refer to that briefing because, at the end, it states:
As we see in other jurisdictions, such as Scotland, injustice will not ensue from the removal of the right to elect trial for what amount to relatively minor crimes.
In that briefing, the police also rely on the Scottish system as being an exemplar of how the system in England and Wales should be.
I would argue that, as a matter of principle, the trial court should deal with the sentence in most cases. The rationale for giving defendants in either-way cases a right to elect is that, if they are at risk of receiving a sentence that is higher than the magistrates can impose, they should at least be given the opportunity to choose to be tried in the Crown court. It is one thing for a defendant, who has voluntarily waived his or her right to jury trial, having been warned of possible consequences, to be committed on conviction to the Crown court to receive a more severe sentence, but if that right is removed the logic should be to limit the power of the magistrates to commit those whom they convict of either-way offences to the Crown court for sentence.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other Home Office Ministers might say that the difference is that they are not going the whole hog on the Scottish system, where the procurator fiscal decides whether there should be a trial by jury. The procurator fiscal has access to the accused person's previous convictions, whereas under the Bill, as we shall hear at great length later tonight when the relevant amendments are debated, magistrates courts will not have access to previous convictions when taking decisions about the place for the trial.
My worry is that, in England and Wales, those accused who are denied the right to trial in Crown court will have no guarantee that they will not up end in the Crown court and receive a longer sentence than the magistrates could have imposed. As well as undermining much of the Government's projected cost saving, that is bound to result in justifiable feelings of unfairness among the defendants concerned, given that the magistrates will have told them that their cases are not deserving enough to be tried in the Crown court, but that they are still serious enough to require being sentenced there.
The Home Office has conducted various research. One of its research projects suggests that most people who elect to be tried in the Crown court have many similar characteristics to those whom the magistrates send to the Crown court for a sentence beyond their powers. For example. 90 per cent. of those who elect to be tried in the Crown court have previous convictions. Therefore, it is easy to suggest that, if magistrates determine the place of trial in future, they might decide to commit many more people to the Crown court for sentence after conviction than the Home Office currently estimates will happen.

Mr. Edward Garnier: It is very easy to be misled by statistics, especially those provided by the Government. The figure for those appearing before the Crown court with the records that the hon. Gentleman describes relates to all defendants in all trials. It relates not only to those who elect trial by jury, but to those who have no choice in the matter who are sent to the Crown court either by the magistrates on committal or because the matter for which they are being tried must go before the Crown court. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to take at face value the statistics provided by the Government on that matter.

Mr. Kidney: I entirely accept that point. In so far as the hon and learned Gentleman suggests that perhaps more than a tenth of those who elect trial by jury are people of previous good character, that only goes to support another of my objections to the Bill: people should be entitled to choose trial by jury for what I regard as serious offences.
If people are committed to the Crown court for sentence by the magistrates, who have taken upon themselves the right to conduct the trial, because they decide at the end of the trial that the person should receive a greater sentence than they are capable of imposing, that will mean that one of the Home Office estimated cost savings will be lost. After all, the biggest factor in the cost savings is that people will receive shorter sentences of imprisonment from the magistrates court rather than the Crown court. If magistrates do not pass sentence and send people to the Crown court for longer sentences, that cost saving will not arise.
I am fortified in that view by a briefing from the Association of Magisterial Officers, which many of us received back in April. The association describes itself as the trade union of magistrates courts staff, so when I picked up the briefing I thought that it would favour the Government's proposal to give more work to magistrates courts and improve the reputation and prestige of its members. However, the association opposes the Bill and says that although the Government claim that it will achieve cost savings, such savings are illusory. If magistrates have to try people who wanted to be tried in the Crown court, they will send more cases to the Crown court for sentencing.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the important briefing from the Association of Magisterial Officers, but he did not say that that association is particularly important because it represents a large majority of legal staff who work in magistrates courts, up to and including those employed as

the deputy justice's clerk. The Government, if they are to be believed, give the impression that everyone involved with magistrates courts supports the Bill, but, as the hon. Gentleman has made clear, senior staff such as those clerks strongly oppose it. Does he agree that that represents a serious criticism?

Mr. Kidney: Yes. Almost three quarters of magistrates courts staff are claimed to be members of the association, so it represents a significant body of opinion. Practitioners who might have had an interest in the Bill becoming law oppose it in principle. That is compelling evidence.
The Legal Action Group opposes the "clear unfairness" of allowing magistrates to deny trial by jury and commit people to the Crown court for sentence. The new clause would prevent that. If the Bill is a matter of principle for the Government, that principle ought to be that the court that hears the trial should hand out the sentence. If the Government argue that delay is the problem and that they are solving it, surely interposing a procedure whereby a magistrate would send a defendant to the Crown court for sentence would cause delay, not remove it. If their argument rests on cost, I argue that committals for sentence would cause extra cost in themselves because of the practicalities and because sentences dished out in the Crown court would be longer than those given by the magistrates court. For all those reasons, I ask hon. Members to support the new clause.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: I shall speak briefly to support amendment No. 12, which I have tabled and which would achieve much the same as the new clause moved by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney). We are concerned about committing to the Crown court for sentence people who have been forced to accept trial in the magistrates court. A number of members of the judiciary and law practitioners think that it would terribly unfair to say to a defendant, "We've forced you to be tried in this court, but we reserve the right to send you to the Crown court for sentence." At present, the magistrates court tells a person charged with an either-way offence such as a theft that the offence can be tried there or in the Crown court and that he can opt for either venue. However, if the defendant consents to be tried in the magistrates court and is convicted and the magistrate then discovers that he has a string of previous convictions, the court reserves the right to send him to the Crown court for sentence. So far, so good—defendants know what is going on.
What troubles me is that, under the Bill, the court may say to the defendant, "We have considered the nature of the case and the circumstances of the offence, and we believe that the punishment that we have the power to impose for the offence is adequate, and we have come to the conclusion that you must be tried here." "Okay, " says the defendant, "if that is what you say." It is a little incongruous to say at the end of a case, if the person is convicted, "Sorry about that. We're going to send you to the Crown court."

Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Does not that underline the practical absurdity of magistrates not being able to take previous convictions and character into account when deciding whether someone should be sent to the Crown court? May I ask the hon. Gentleman to


reflect on a particular example? Suppose that the defence for someone charged with possession of drugs who has previous convictions for drugs offences is that the drugs were planted because he had refused to be a police informer. That is a perfectly ordinary case. He says that he wants to go to the Crown court, but he cannot tell the magistrates that he has previous convictions. The magistrates refuse him, and he is tried in the magistrates court. When the magistrates find out about his previous convictions, they say that they wish they had sent the chap to the Crown court because he is going there anyway. Does not that illustrate the absolute absurdity of the present state of affairs, and the fact that the Bill will cause enormous delay and immense expense?

Mr. Malins: I do not think that anyone in the House could have illustrated the absurdity of the situation better than the hon. and learned Gentleman, whose record is very distinguished. He has hit upon a very good point. It seems slightly odd to me that that can be expected to happen. It also seems slightly unfair, and I should be grateful if the Government would reconsider that possibility.

Mr. Gariner: I support the thrust of new clause 3, which was so sensibly introduced by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), and the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). Their concerns are abundantly sensible and, I suggest, not capable of contradiction. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking said, they were brilliantly reinforced by the example given by the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews).
One of the further reasons why the new clause and the amendment deserve consideration is that on Second Reading the Home Secretary relied on the Scottish example to justify not allowing the criminal defendant the right of election. He said:
Scotland is, rightly, held out to be a nation with a more effective criminal justice system than ours. There, the decision on mode of trial has never rested with the defendant, but is made by the prosecutor.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 886.]
He said that that offered a complete response to the question that he was endeavouring to answer. He made use of that example by relying on a false premise.
In Scotland, the prosecutor chooses the venue, but the sheriff who tries the summary case is the equivalent of a stipendiary magistrate or a circuit judge in this jurisdiction, not a bench of lay magistrates. Moreover, the maximum sentence available on summary trial in Scotland is three months, not six, and unlike in this country, the summary court has no power to commit a convicted defendant to a higher court for a more severe sentence if it feels that its powers are insufficient.
On Second Reading, the Home Secretary was trying to persuade the House of Commons that the Scottish example was of some value to us in our deliberations on the Bill. For the reasons that have been outlined by the hon. Member for Stafford in his new clause, and those outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking, the Home Secretary's arguments are without merit. I invite the House to pay considerable attention to what the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have just said.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I apologise to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) for

arriving slightly late. I heard the end of his speech and all that of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), and I understand the argument.
I support in general—because it is logical—the proposition that people should know in advance the potential consequences for them of a certain plea, but I want to make a point that is slightly different from those that have been made so far. If ever there was an argument for not legislating now, it is evidenced by this debate.
We should consider the terms of reference for the Auld committee. A review is in progress: Lord Justice Auld is going around the country collecting evidence. He is also going abroad and looking at other jurisdictions, and considering the Scottish experience. He has asked some profound questions, which relate to issues such as this but which also go wider. He asks, for example, whether there should be only one form of court. Should the magistrates court and the Crown court be merged to avoid the committal process? Should there be two types of judge, a full-time professional judge and a part-time lay judge? Should the work be divided between them, but in the same court?
Should there be different rules about who might be on a jury? Many of us are disqualified from jury service. Is the way in which we form juries correct, or ought we to review the methods of selection in order to include people who may currently be excluded? Some say that juries are currently very unbalanced, because many "professional" people submit the equivalent of sick notes, with the result that juries do not represent the true balance of the community as we would wish them to.
Should there be more stipendiary magistrates, or more lay magistrates? We could have an important debate about that. Which would command more confidence among the electorate, and the public as a whole? Which would cost more?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I invite the hon. Member to home in on the new clause? He is buzzing around it rather too much.

Mr. Hughes: I am trying not to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to make the point that the question whether a limit should be placed on the sentencing power of the lower court is one of a set of interrelated questions that ought to be considered together. We could say, "Yes, this is logical in itself", but many earlier questions should be answered before we answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Stafford.
I shall be interested to hear the Government's reply, but I would be far more interested to hear that an up-to-date objective assessment will be available to us by December this year. Lord Justice Auld has said that he expects to report in December, that he is on time, and that he expects to have the evidence. It would be good for the parties to have an opportunity, in the run-up to the general election, to decide how to respond. We could each submit our views in our manifestos: we could have considered internal party debates, and could go to the electorate with our views.
We could have a real debate about the best criminal justice system. That debate might include a view about whether the sentencing power of the lower court—assuming that the two-tier court structure is retained—should accord with the Scottish system. In Scotland,


once someone knows that he will be dealt with in the lower court—whether he has chosen that, or has been told that it will happen—he knows that the tariff cannot be changed, that the possible sentence cannot be upped, and that there is no risk of a complete change in the balance of prejudice or disadvantage.
Finally, let me make a practical point. Like others, I speak from experience. As anyone who has been in court will know, an important consideration for defendants is what the potential sentence will be. That consideration is bound to influence a plea. People sometimes plead guilty although they are not guilty, for all sorts of reasons. If they think the sentence will be limited, they may feel that the risk is worth taking.
It should be borne in mind that taking away a right will also take away a power, and may disadvantage a person further. My colleagues and I are unhappy about taking away that right: we have already argued our case. We will not support the Bill on Third Reading, however it may have been amended, because we think that the process has been dealt with in the wrong way. However, both the hon. Member for Stafford and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) ask perfectly proper questions. This should be one of a series of interconnected considerations, on which we should reach a comprehensive and serious view

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), with whom I have served on the Select Committee on the Treasury, has a strong and genuine view, which he has held throughout. I pay tribute to the integrity with which he consistently makes his case. I think I am right in saying—he will correct me if I am wrong—that his fundamental objection is to the approach taken throughout the Bill as a whole and that, even if the new clause were accepted, that would not change his view about the matter as a whole.

Mr. Kidney: indicated assent.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend confirms that that is his view. [Interruption.] The Whips suggest that I was trying to bargain, but there was no doing business there. However, joking aside, I appreciate his confirming that. I am glad that he has made the position clear.
I will deal with my hon. Friend's points in reverse order. On the illusory savings point, I addressed that at great length in Committee. The Government rest their case on the Bill being a modernisation of the criminal justice system, which is justified in its own terms. We are required under the law of the land to set out our estimate of the savings. We must set out in a memorandum our estimate of the savings, which we have done honestly and directly, but the Bill does not rest on the accuracy of those assumptions or, indeed, on the fact of there being savings at all.
It is possible that the assumptions that we have made will not, in practice, turn out to be exactly as we predict. That is entirely understandable, but that does not, in our view, change the case for or against the Bill in any respect, because it is about modernisation of the criminal justice system.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) raised points about the reputation issue, which, if he permits me, I shall deal with in the discussion on the next group of amendments—which addresses that point directly—rather than reiterate my points now.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) advances the argument for delaying all this—again, we discussed the matter in Committee at some length—to wait for Auld, as it were. I accept that there is a perfectly coherent argument for that, although I do not accept—I have not accepted it with any process of commission change, inquiry or review of any part of the Government's work—that that inquiry or review, whatever form it takes, should prevent reform as we go forward; in this case, it takes the form of the Auld inquiry. There is a case for looking at it in the way he suggests, but I do not accept that case. 1 do not think that it is right.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Can the Minister explain why the Government commissioned a senior Lord Justice to conduct an inquiry, specifically asking him to address that question, if, in the meantime and since he was asked to do it, they have been determined to legislate when they have not had any answer? I do not understand the logic. They did not do it on fox hunting—they set up a commission, got the inquiry and then announced how they were going to proceed.

Mr. Clarke: The terms of reference of the Auld inquiry go far wider than simply the mode of trial issue. By the way, the first mode of trial Bill was presented before Mr. Justice Auld was appointed. We embarked on that course of action because we thought that the reform was justified in its own terms. As I say, there is a perfectly respectable argument that says that we should not do anything about any of these things until Auld reports, but I do not accept that argument and nor do the Government.

Mr. Garnier: The point I wish to make follows on from what from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said. Let us assume that the Bill becomes law, but that, none the less, Sir Robin Auld in his inquiry reaches a completely different conclusion about the value of the jury. What will the Government do then?

Mr. Clarke: We will look at all Sir Robin Auld's recommendations. I do not think the issue is about a verdict on the value of the jury. There is no issue about the value of the jury. I was going to address a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford on the matter. I do not share the view that jury trial is wasteful, in the wording of the briefing from which my hon. Friend read. I do not think that is a correct way to look at it. I do think that aspects of the way the criminal justice system works are inefficient and ineffective, and it is reasonable to look at that from a wide range of points of view. That is what the Bill is about, but the word "wasteful"—I agree with my hon. Friend—is wrong.
In the same way, I do not think that anything we do in the Bill prevents us from looking carefully at precisely what Sir Robin Auld recommends when he comes to do so, but the core point was raised by my hon. Friend when


he described the measure as the Scottish amendment. He talks of the trade-off between the sentencing powers and the prosecutor taking the decision.
Much was made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) about what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about the Scottish example. The point of that example is that in the Scottish system—a completely different system, as is acknowledged by all parties in the debate—the prosecutor takes the decision as to the mode of trial. We are not proposing that. That is simply not the proposal in the Bill and before the House. We propose that a magistrates court—a magistrate—takes that decision, not that the prosecutor takes it, so the trade in the proposal is simply not appropriate to this situation.
example that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway gave, and to which the hon. and learned Member for Harborough referred, was just that—an example. The defence's ability to choose in these circumstances is not absolute.
9.45 pm
The fact is that this group of amendments would remove the ability of the magistrates court to commit a case to the Crown court for sentence if there has been a mode of trial hearing. It has long been a feature of our criminal justice system in England and Wales that the magistrates have a power to commit a case for sentence if the circumstances of the offence suggest that the punishment that the court would have to impose following a conviction would be inadequate. We believe that there is nothing inherently unfair with that procedure, as a defendant will generally be committed to the higher court for sentence only because his previous criminal record has aggravated the offence. Our estimate is that, as a result of the Bill, about 8 per cent. of formally electing cases will be committed to the Crown court for sentence.

Mr. Kidney: I cannot forbear from saying that the practice of magistrates committing for sentence after the trial is as long-standing as the accused's right to choose trial in the Crown court rather than the magistrates court. However, that is by the bye. My hon. Friend said that the Scottish system was different because, in that system, it is the prosecutor who takes away the accused's right of jury trial, whereas, in the Bill, it will be the magistrates who do it. However, the principle of the two systems is the same, as the accused will not have a choice in either. What difference does it make if the prosecutor rather than the court makes the decision?

Mr. Clarke: I think that there is a qualitative difference—perhaps my hon. Friend does not share this view—between the decision on mode of trial being made by the prosecutor and the decision being made by a court with a right of appeal to the Crown court. l do not think that the two processes are the same thing at all. I think that the decisions are quite different in character and in approach, and that, therefore, there is no comparison between them. As I said, the Scottish system has an entirely different history and set of circumstances, and it deals with the matter in that way. I think that there is a difference in approach that should be reflected quite directly in our system.
Our critics have suggested that there will be many more cases in which defendants are committed for sentence because so many who opt for that route have lengthy

criminal careers. However, it does not automatically follow that defendants have to go to the Crown court for sentence just because they have a long criminal record. We believe that magistrates are able to deal with most defendants' previous records without committing them for sentence. Nevertheless, the power to commit for sentence is an important safeguard. It ensures that the courts can impose an appropriate punishment in cases that unexpectedly turn out during the trial to be more serious than was anticipated, or in cases in which a defendant's previous conviction has seriously aggravated the offence

Mr. Simon Hughes: Before the Government presented their proposals, did they consider the Scottish option of the prosecutor making the choice? Did they also consider the option of limiting the right to commit cases to the Crown court? Did Ministers evaluate those options, and can they present any evidence to support their conclusions?

Mr. Clarke: There was very full consideration of those issues. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway has already mentioned the royal commission and all the processes surrounding it. I have to confess, however, that I do not think that very full consideration was given to the idea of going straight to the prosecutor, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, simply because most people in this country would think that that is a proposal too far. Therefore, although the option was on the agenda for discussion, I would not say that it was considered very fully. I think that most hon. Members and most members of the public would not think that using the prosecutor in that way is the right way to proceed.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: With respect to my hon. Friend, I wonder whether he will deal with the central point. How can it be right that a magistrates court can take upon itself the responsibility to try a case, knowing nothing of the defendant's previous convictions, but then abnegate responsibility for sentencing that person when they do? Does he not understand from his experience that the two cannot be divorced and that the nature of the defendant's background impinges on the trial? What my hon. Friend is asking magistrates to do is not only wrong but impossible.

Mr. Clarke: I understand that. It is a powerful argument for the reputation clauses in the first Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill that was considered by the other place. It was a case against which he, along with many others, argued. Indeed, he argued against the whole Bill, as he is entitled to do. There is a case for bringing in reputation. It is one that the Government were prepared to consider directly, but many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, argued that we should not do so.
I have attempted to deal with the arguments that have been made. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford will consider withdrawing his new clause. If he decides not to do so, I will urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. Kidney: I am grateful for, but not thrilled by, the support that I have received from Opposition Members. I am especially grateful for all that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said because it accords with my view that the Bill is wrong


in principle, that the Lord Justice Auld review ought to consider all the matters together and that we should not take this one out of context now.
As the hon. Gentleman was not here when I spoke, I should just mention that in its briefing the Association of Magisterial Officers set out a number of practical changes in the procedures of the magistrates and Crown courts which would go a long way to meeting the Government's objections to the state of affairs in those courts.
My hon. Friend the Minister found me out very early. I would be against the Bill even if he accepted the new clause. It would be a self-indulgence to insist on a vote when other important issues remain to be debated tonight; so with the leave of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

DETERMINATION OF MODE OF TRIAL

Mr. Matins: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 12, at end insert—
(aa) any written representations from the victim;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 15, in page 1, line 13, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
'(b) all the circumstances of the offence and of the accused including his antecedents if any; and'.
No. 6, in page 1, line 13, leave out
'(but not of the accused)'
and insert "and of the accused".
No. 9, in page 1, line 17, leave out "paragraph (b)" and insert—
'paragraphs (a), (b) and (d)'.
No. 8, in page 1, line 19, at end insert—
'and
(d) the antecedents of the accused.'.
No. 19, in page 1, line 19, at end insert—
'; and
(d) whether in all circumstances of the case a denial of jury trial would impinge upon the rights not only of the accused but also of the community at large to have the matter considered and adjudicated by a jury.'.

Mr. Malins: It occurs to me that we now have approximately one hour to debate not only this but other groups of amendments. That imposes on me the need to be brief because other right hon. and hon. Members want to speak.
This group of amendments relates to matters to be considered by the court when determining mode of trial. I speak initially to amendment No. 5, but I shall also speak to my amendments Nos. 6, 9 and 8. Amendment No. 5 refers to taking into account any written representations from the victim. Amendment No. 6 would make the clause read that the court shall consider
any of the circumstances of the offence and of the accused
rather than
but not of the accused.

Amendment No. 8 entitles the court to take into account the antecedents of the accused in reaching its decision. Amendment No. 9 is merely a tidying up.
I recall the Home Secretary saying at the beginning of our proceedings this afternoon that he could do business with the Opposition on the reputation clause, so I look to the Government tonight to take into account what they hear and to promise to do something in the spirit of what is suggested.

Mr. Charles Clarke: To clarify the terms of trade, as it were, if the Government accepted amendments on reputation, would the hon. Gentleman support the Bill, and does he believe that his Front-Bench spokesmen would?

Mr. Malins: I cannot speak for the Front-Bench spokesmen, and the nearest I have ever got to the Front Bench is to go and ask the Whip on duty what time the next vote is. I therefore have to speak for myself alone.
Much reference has been made to trial by jury, magistrates or stipendiary magistrates. I do not think that the House would wish us to talk in terms of having a better trial in one venue or another. As I said on Second Reading, a trial before a lay bench can be very good or very bad, depending on the day. The same applies to a stipendiary magistrate and to a jury. It is not so much about having a better trial, because all the venues can give a defendant a wonderful trial or not such a wonderful trial, depending on the circumstances. It is a question not of a better trial but of a different trial. We have to focus on defendants' ability and need, and hitherto their right, to ask for a jury trial because it is what they want.
The hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) is to be congratulated on everything that he has done on the general theme of taking all the factors into account—including the effect on the reputation of a defendant, when that is at stake. That is why I shall speak briefly and then hand over to other Members who want to contribute to the debate.
It is important that, when the court considers whether the offence should be tried summarily or on indictment, it should be fully informed on the case. That means everything; it does not mean holding back from the court some of the defendant's background in respect of his previous convictions. I should have much less objection to the Bill if it permitted magistrates, when hearing representations, to hear from the defence much more about the defendant—about his or her background and antecedents, his or her life style, job or reputation—or, for example, to hear what victims think and what the effect has been on them.
If one is to make a decision about punishment and mode of trial, it is important for the court in question to be fully informed as to the background. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said, as though it were the most powerful argument:
It cannot be right that we continue to allow repeat offenders with strings of previous convictions to demand full Crown court trials for trivial offences that can and should be heard in magistrates courts.
He continued:
A 26-year-old man with 15 previous convictions covering a total of 63 offences, including 36 offences of theft, elected trial for the offence of stealing one bottle of champagne. I ask the House


whether it is sensible to have a system that allows that kind of election for trial.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000: Vol. 345,c. 888-95.]
Let us suppose that the Home Secretary is right. Under my amendments, what would happen? The court would hear everything about the defendant from his own lips—including his antecedent history. In the case of the person with the 63 previous, who has stolen a bottle of whisky, the court could—under my proposals—say that no, that person would be tried in the magistrates court, or the court could say yes if that was just. The Home Secretary's point would thus be completely covered. If the Minister thinks that is not so, he must tell me.
Likewise, under my proposals, the defendant who wants the court to take into account the fact that he is a person of entirely good character and would like to be tried by his peers can say that to the court. The court can then take that into account. If it decides against the defendant, that decision is subject to appeal to the Crown court.

Mr. Simon Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman's proposals were accepted and magistrates courts heard the panoply of arguments, would that court have no further jurisdiction after it had decided on the mode of trial? Thereafter, would different magistrates and a different clerk have to deal with that defendant? When any such group had dealt with a defendant, those people could no longer be involved in the case.

Mr. Malins: It is common practice that one cannot try a case in a magistrates court if one has heard the bail application. It is as simple as that. When I hear bail applications, I hear all the antecedent history and am thus debarred from taking the trial. That is everyday practice in magistrates courts. There would be a fresh bench.
It is miserable not to permit a court to take into account everything about the defendant—including background, antecedent history, previous convictions and general reputation. That is wrong, unfair and unjust. If the magistrates court makes the wrong decision, the Crown court can put it right. I venture to suggest that, if my amendments were accepted, most people would think that the position was much fairer than it is at present.

Mr. Garnier: I speak to amendment No. 19, tabled by myself and other Opposition Members. It would insert in clause 1, and thereby in section 19 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, a further paragraph. At the moment, section 19(1) of the 1980 Act, as amended by clause 1 of the Bill, would say:

The court—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
That, at this day's sitting, the Local Government Bill [Lords] and the Learning and Skills Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill

Not amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Garnier: The Act would say:
(1) The court shall consider whether the offence
ought to be tried summarily or on indictment.
(2) For the purpose of subsection (I) above the court shall consider—

(a) the nature of the case;
(b) any of the circumstances of the offence (but not of the accused) which appears to the court to be relevant; and
(c) whether, having regard to the matters to be considered under paragraph (b), the punishment which a magistrates' court would have power to impose for the offence would be adequate.


We ask that there should be a further paragraph (d) which reads:
whether in all circumstances of the case a denial of jury trial would impinge upon the rights not only of the accused but also of the community at large to have the matter considered and adjudicated by a jury.
I make it clear at the outset that my arguments, and those of my party, against the Bill as a whole do not depend on attacking or denigrating the lay magistracy. Magistrates do a magnificent job, for no pay and mean expenses. Over 90 per cent. of all cases that fall within the criminal or quasi-criminal jurisdiction go before magistrates. That includes parking and motoring matters, licensing applications and cases that we would all recognise as criminal. Magistrates form a vital part of the jigsaw of local justice, which the official Opposition want to strengthen and enhance. Our argument is not that magistrates cannot do the job that the Bill gives them, but that, as a matter of justice and fairness, they should not have to.
The right to jury trial has always been regarded as central to our system of criminal justice. That is because the system, unlike many others, is adversarial. Serious criminal cases brought by the state should not be tried by the state's appointees, but should be tried by fellow citizens drawn at random. That has always been regarded as particularly important to defend the rights of minorities and dissidents who are likely to be, or could be, unpopular with judges and appointed magistrates.
The truth of that proposition—I should have thought that the contrary was unarguable—has been tested in a great many cases throughout history, but I just want to refer to two examples, in relatively recent times.
In 1975, a young, former South African, active campaigner against apartheid was charged with theft from a bank. There remains considerable suspicion that the case was a set-up by the South African security services. The case was vigorously prosecuted, but the jury at the central criminal court in London would have none of it, and the defendant was properly acquitted. He is now a Minister of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Under the terms of the Bill, there is a near certainty that he would now be denied jury trial.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): rose—

Mr. Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to finish the paragraph?
The second example that I would like to bring to the attention of the House is that of Clive Ponting, who was tried at the central criminal court, just after the Falklands war was completed, for leaking Government documents relating to the Belgrano. Despite directions from the trial judge, in effect to—

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Ponting did not leak those documents. He sent them to me, and I treated them as a proceeding in Parliament.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than that. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not given way. Mr. Edward Garnier.

Mr. Edward Leigh: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) mentioned the Belgrano.

Mr. Garnier: Let me—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order

Mr. Garnier: Let me accept, in the spirit of cross-party co-operation, that what the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said is perfectly right, but I am aware of the way in which time is marching on and I do not consider that the fact that that particular detail was not included in my remarks alters the thrust of what I am attempting to say. Undeniably, the hon. Gentleman knows more about the facts of the Clive Ponting case than most of us, but the point is that Clive Ponting was acquitted despite the vigorous directions of the judge.
A further reason why we submit that paragraph (d) should be added to the section is that the ethnic minority communities, or a large number of members of those communities, have a perception that they do not receive equal treatment in front of the magistrates. No one suggests that that is a universal practice, but it is a strongly held perception in such groups.
The right to elect trial is the most valuable method of curing problems—both real and perceived. I make that point as a public supporter of the lay magistracy—I made that clear earlier—and even though I do not share the perception of ethnic minority communities that they do not receive equal treatment before lay magistrates. Magistrates will decide whether a case should remain with them or go to the Crown court. Unless they bear in mind such considerations, and bear in mind the rights of the accused and the rights of the community at large, who both have an interest in seeing that justice is done, they will arrive at what will be seen as unfair decisions.
Any number of bodies interested in criminal justice—they range from the Criminal Bar Association to the Society of Labour Lawyers—find this Bill wholly objectionable. To a small extent, their concerns might be mitigated were paragraph (d) in amendment No. 19 to be inserted into the Bill. Of more importance than the concerns of the Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council, the Society of Labour Lawyers, the Society of Liberal Democrat Lawyers or, indeed, the Society of Conservative Lawyers are the concerns of the Society of

Black Lawyers. When such a body, speaking out of genuine interest and genuine knowledge of the fears of its community, expresses doubts about the wisdom of the Bill, the House should pay careful attention. In making those remarks, I remind the House and, in particular, this Home Secretary of the concerns of Mr. Imran Khan, the solicitor instructed on behalf of the Lawrence family to appear for them at the Macpherson inquiry.
I also remind the House of the words of Mr. Peter Herbert, the chairman of the Society of Black Lawyers. He said that it feared that the Bill, without the corrections that we seek to make to it, would add to the loss of confidence in the summary justice system that many of its clients already have.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: It would greatly assist the House, and certainly my hon. and learned Friend's colleagues, if he would tell us what his opinion of the Bill would be if the Government accepted amendment No. 15, which was tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and which would include the reputation and livelihood tests. Although 1 am against the Bill, if Ministers were to accept that amendment, I would regard the Bill as greatly improved to the point that I would probably withhold my opposition to it on Third Reading. It would help if my hon. and learned Friend would tell us the view that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen take of amendment No. 15.

Mr. Garnier: I am happy to do that. In my view, the Bill is fundamentally flawed from top to bottom and I do not believe that the House should give it passage. I am not as charitable as my right hon. and learned Friend in thinking that even an amendment tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) would cure the fundamental objections that the official Opposition have to the Bill. I made my views on what the future of the Bill should be clear on Second Reading. I have heard and learned nothing from the Government to persuade me that the view that I took then was wrong. The principle that I supported on Second Reading in opposition to the Bill is one that should honourably be maintained. I am not persuaded that any tinkering—even if it might mitigate some of the worst effects of this bad Bill—would overcome my overall principled objections.

Mr. Charles Clarke: This point is similar to that made by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). Am I correct in my understanding that the Opposition Front-Bench position will not change, whatever amendments we may pass this evening?

Mr. Garnier: The position is entirely clear—this is a bad Bill in principle. We spoke and voted against it on Second Reading. Although I understand the practicalities of the voting arithmetic and I know that the Bill will move to another place, I am happy to say that this is a bicameral Parliament and it is up to the other House to add their views to those of this House before the Bill becomes an Act.

Mr. Leigh: The point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) is very important. Towards the end


of the Committee proceedings, it was clear to me that the Government were considering making a concession on this point. I see the Minister nodding. I hope that further discussions can take place on amendment No. 15, which is vital because it would greatly improve the Bill if magistrates could take into account someone's good character.

Mr. Garnier: Further discussions may well take place, but I will not negotiate with the Government across the Dispatch Box. I repeat that this is a bad Bill in principle, and, as the Opposition spokesman, it is my job to argue—cogently, I hope, and with some persuasion—against the principle. I think that I have the support of the Opposition and of the Liberal Democrats.
If the Government want to table amendments, we will consider them. As I said a moment ago, I cannot control the destiny of the Bill. The Government have the majority, and we are merely interested bystanders.

Mr. Hogg: Participating bystanders.

Mr. Garnier: We are interested and participating bystanders, but, to the extent that this is a joint enterprise in the sense of the criminal law, I can acquit myself of having been guilty of supporting the Bill.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the Minister's questions are rather strange? Either the Bill will be improved by such an amendment, and the Minister thinks so, or it will not be. If it will be improved, the Minister should be ready to accept that without giving the impression that it is a concession in return for something else.

Mr. Garnier: That is a fair point and it was well made. If the Government want to make the Bill less bad, let them do so—they have the power to do so—but it is not my job, on behalf of the official Opposition, to tear up my principles and my principled objection to the Bill simply because the Minister and the Home Secretary have been embarrassed this afternoon. I am sure that Liberal Democrat Members agree.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I certainly associate myself with that view. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if we were to introduce a means to decide the venue by requiring the defendant to provide information on his antecedents, there would be greater prejudice against someone with a criminal history, even though that history might be irrelevant to the offence that they had been charged with?

Mr. Garnier: The Government have introduced into this debate and earlier debates many points that do not address the serious problems that we are having to face as a consequence of the Bill's introduction. If the Government want to make suggestions about how they can mitigate the Bill's worst consequences, that is a matter for them. I am not prepared to allow them to amend the Bill on the hoof this evening.
I shall conclude because I know that other Members want to contribute to our limited discussions. I have made the point about the ethnic minority communities, and there is a valid point that the public interest would be served if

the interests of the community at large could be considered by the court in deciding venue. I hope that the House will agree.
The criminal justice system is largely consensual. We do not have—I know from experience as a recorder—armed guards and prisoners in shackles, restrained in the dock. Indeed, a number of defendants in court before me have sat not in the dock, but in the lawyers' seats just a little way from the judge's bench. The reason why defendants are left in court by themselves almost, on trust, is that, guilty men are sentenced—perhaps unfortunately, from their point of view, to a long term of imprisonment—knowing that they have been justly convicted by their fellow citizens who have heard the evidence during a trial.
The Government are putting in danger the consensual nature of our criminal justice system. It is all the more important that the consensual issue is reflected through the addition of amendment No. 19. I appreciate that my overriding objection to the Bill is one of principle, of which I spoke on Second Reading. Nothing that the Government have said or done since has tempted me to move from that position. If we are to have an appalling Bill, let us do our best to mitigate its appalling consequences

Mr. Gareth Thomas: I speak as someone who has grave reservations about the wisdom of proceeding with the Bill, especially in the light of the fact that the Auld commission has been charged with the task of comprehensively reviewing the criminal justice system. Incidentally, I also speak as a member of the Bar.
I tend to support the Government on the amendments. Although many hon. Members have raised valid points concerning the reputation clause, I take the view that, logically, it is right, in order to avoid the possible charge that a reputation clause is socially divisive, for the Government to have moved—they take the view that the venue should be determined judicially and not left to the defendant—to a neutral position on the antecedents of the defendant, having clearly been stung by criticism levelled against the Bill in the other place.
I see the force in the argument that allowing weight to be given to reputation and antecedents would create the danger of a socially divisive system—a Rolls-Royce system for those with an unblemished character and a summary trial system for those, perhaps including very many members of ethnic communities, who have records.

Mr. Hogg: It is difficult for the court to form a view of whether punishment would be adequate, as it is directed to do under proposed new section 19(2)(c), without knowing the antecedents of the accused. In the absence of knowledge, it is difficult to determine an appropriate penalty.

Mr. Thomas: I take on board what has been said. Although I have made broadly positive comments about the clause, the Government should address the following point. Does not common sense suggest that a bench of magistrates will, one way or another, want to take into account the character of a defendant? Even if magistrates do not want to do so, is it not true, given what some uncharitably call the intellectual dishonesty of this


country's higher judiciary and others call their simple ingenuity, that a body of precedent will develop on appeal—the principle of interlocutory appeal is embedded in the legislation—which will in some way or another bring into play the question of character?
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) has told us that the previous Lord Chief Justice pointed out that it is unrealistic to expect decision makers not to take into account a defendant's character in some way, so how confident can the Government be that antecedents will not come into play at the end of the day?

Mr. Leigh: I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I do not think that he is being fair to the Government, because the Bill is absolutely clear. New section 19(2)(b) states that the court can consider
any of the circumstances of the offence (but not of the accused)…
Therefore, no case law can develop because the magistrates court will not be able to consider the circumstances of the accused. Considering antecedents is not socially divisive: men and women of good character can come from any social background.

Mr. Thomas: Given that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Bar, I am surprised that he underestimates the courts' ingenuity in getting around such provisions. I draw his attention to new section 19(2)(a), which states that the court can take into account circumstances including
the nature of the case.
I have a bald question for my hon. Friend the Minister to answer, if he can. Is it his understanding that a case that lawyers might describe as "a typical shoplifting case", in which the only issue is dishonesty and the defendant is of previous good character, would have to remain in the magistrates court? To what extent is that a realistic assessment, given that, as we know, the previous Lord Chief Justice is not alone in taking the view that common sense suggests that character must be taken into account?
I sense that the Government are ambivalent about the issue. It is clear that they were stung by the arguments advanced in the other place that the first Bill would have been socially divisive. However, in view of the throwaway remark that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made earlier tonight, that the Government were prepared to "do business" on the question of the reputation clause, I wonder whether they know what they want to do in that respect. Given that others want to participate in this debate, I conclude my remarks on that note.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I rise to commend amendment No. 15. First, however, I should make it clear that I regard the Bill as fundamentally unsound and I do not believe that the requests for a bargain made by Home Secretary and the Minister of State are appropriate. It is the duty of the Opposition to oppose and then to try to improve a Bill if they can. The Bill is a bad one, but it would be less bad if my amendment were made.
Amendment No. 15 would ensure that, in deciding where trial shall take place, the court shall be entitled to take into account all the circumstances, both of the

offence and of the accused. The Lord Chief Justice—who supported the first Bill, which I did not—recommended that provision, and the Home Secretary knew that when he introduced the current Bill; regrettably, however, the right hon. Gentleman left the impression that the Lord Chief Justice supported the Bill as it stood. The Bill would be a better Bill if it were amended as I propose.
I tabled an amendment similar to amendment No. 19 in Committee, and I should like to speak in support of it now. When we are considering jury trial, it is not only the rights of an accused to be tried by jury that should be taken into account. There are the rights also of the citizens of this country as a whole, expressed through each little parliament which a jury constitutes, to set the standards of criminal justice. It is one of the great linchpins of our democracy.
This is nothing theoretical. I can say as a former Attorney-General that when we—the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director of the Serious Fraud Office, or other senior prosecutors—came to discuss cases and questions of prosecution, one of the matters that was always considered was whether a jury would be likely to convict in the circumstances of the case. That is a salutary consideration for those who have the honour to govern the country from time to time. It is not the Government who decide the criminal prosecution system. The Attorney-General and the Law Officers as a whole are Her Majesty's Law Officers and they stand independently in a quasi-judicial position. It is salutary that they should consider the views of ordinary people.

Mr. Grieve: It is all the more remarkable that little parliaments exist to deal with matters that the Government consider so trivial that they do not wish a person to have that protection.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: That is why the Government are deeply mistaken in their view. As my hon. Friend says, one of the great benefits of our system of justice is that it is largely consensual. One of the reasons for that is the huge spectrum of either-way cases where people have a right at present to choose trial by jury. If they want trial by jury, they choose it. If they do not, they accept the system. Either way, and even if they plead guilty later, they are confident and comfortable with the system of justice which we in England and Wales are proud to have and regard as second to none.

Mr. Hogg: On amendment No. 19, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are cases where the prosecution might be deemed oppressive or the procedures adopted by the prosecution authorities might be deemed unreasonable? In such cases, the jury might refuse to convict. The refusal of the jury is a proper constraint on the ability of the prosecution to prosecute, or on the ability of the police to prosecute in the way that they did.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. It is a protection against tyranny; it would be a fundamental mistake to seek to remove it.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: I say somewhat unwillingly that I cannot support the amendments, which would effectively reintroduce the livelihood and reputation clause. As much of the debate has been spent by the


occupants of the Government Front Bench telling those of us who fought against the clause, "There you are, it is all your fault", perhaps I might go into a little history, which will take not very long.
Jury trial has long been in the sights of a number of people, not a million miles away from the Treasury, who believe that people going to it who are not charged with terribly serious offences are getting Rolls-Royce treatment which they do not deserve. It has long been the idea that that treatment should be taken away from them. They hit what appeared to be the immovable rock that, for some people with great reputations, livelihoods and jobs—not necessarily posh people or rich people, but people who have fought against the system and managed against all the odds to make themselves respectable and to have jobs—the loss of livelihood is far more important than it is for many others who are charged with much more serious crimes.
Thus there was a problem. It was overcome by the Runciman commission, which introduced the reputation solution. Thereafter, it was enthusiastically endorsed by a number of others. I quote:
There will be safeguards, including a requirement on magistrates to consider the effect of conviction on a defendant's reputation and livelihood when considering the mode of trial.
That was my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary at the beginning of the Bill's consideration. He was speaking not to the House, because the Bill was not announced in the House. It was announced at the Police Federation, at which my right hon. Friend made a speech indicating how central and important "reputation and livelihood" were if unfairness was not to be created. Of course, the Home Secretary missed the point, which was well set out in the House of Lords—that a safeguard is created for one class and immediately removed from another, creating partial justice.
What is partial justice? Is it worse than justice given to a few? The Government's solution was to take justice away from everybody. Nobody could have it. That was the result. Now, reputation cannot be taken into account at all. The crass absurdity of that position is emphasised time and again by anybody who knows anything about the criminal justice system. It will give rise to massive injustice and cause huge delay.
10.30 pm
The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) was absolutely right. Shoplifting offenders are now out of the system. They will not be able to have jury trial at all.
The position is worse than that. The example was given of Mr. Peter Hain, as he then was, before he became Minister of State. I can tell the House that his chances of getting a jury trial under the Bill would be very small, if not non-existent. Moreover, if he had been tried in front of a stipendiary magistrate in the south-western magistrates court, in the atmosphere prevailing when the antiapartheid movement was active, his chances of acquittal would have been zero.
If that is what those on the Front Bench want to impose on people in this country, I am extremely surprised. It comes from a Government who we always believed would uphold the traditions of civil liberty.

Mr. David Taylor: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for giving way. No doubt he

would agree that reputation and livelihood can be central issues, but is it not the case that many offences are at present summary only, and that the charge could damage the reputation and livelihood of the accused? I cite as an example indecent exposure by a minister of religion.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: That is right, and a line must be drawn somewhere. That line should be very low; it is probably drawn too high at present. However, it should not be extended to offences of dishonesty, which can ruin and destroy reputations and are much more prevalent than the type of offences cited by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He is opposing amendment No. 15 on the ground that it induces two classes of justice. I think that he would agree that, when it comes to sentencing, there are by his own criteria already two classes of justice, because the court, when determining whether to send to the Crown court for sentence, will necessarily have regard to the antecedents of the accused appearing before that court.

Mr. Marshall-Andrews: That is because the magistrates' powers are limited. It is not merely a question of their wanting to go further on a sliding scale. If they want to impose a sentence of more than six or 12 months, or whatever the limit is, they must commit. Before that, under the present system, they would not know about the antecedents. The explanation is perfectly reasonable.
I maintain my opposition, which is based on the partiality of justice. The Bill is rotten at its core. Everybody who practises in the criminal justice system, outside the Magistrates Association and the Police Federation, knows it in his heart. I implore the Government, while there is still time, to rethink the legislation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I add my support, along the lines of the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews). The amendments in the present group do not solve the difficulties of the Bill. They do not make a bad Bill a good Bill.
There is one amendment in the group that has the joint support of those on the Conservative Front Bench and my hon. Friends and me. It seeks to make sure that there is a consideration of the wider public interest. That was well expressed, if I may say so, by the former Attorney-General. The central argument for jury trial is that it is the people, not the establishment, who make the decision, whereas it is, by definition, somebody on behalf of the state who makes the decision to prosecute, so the functions must be separated. Therefore, the wider interest needs to be represented.
According to the Government's figures, we are talking about never more than 5 per cent. of the cases in the past five years ending up in the Crown court, and sometimes less.
The Government put in the reputation clause, which was rightly rejected in the other place, principally because it created a two-tier system of justice. An obvious example is a that of a head teacher who would be thought to be at greater risk of damage to his or her reputation than an unemployed person entering adulthood. That is


clearly discriminatory, and, on that basis, the Lords rightly threw it out. The Government were then completely stuck about what to do.
The revealing correspondence between the Home Secretary and the former Lord Chief Justice, recently retired, shows that the Government do not have a position of principle. The Government seek to take away the option of jury trial for everyone who has that option but for no other principle than that there is some vague benefit, arguably, that the resulting justice will be more efficient and cost less. There is no principle there.
The strongest argument in practice for not going into the prehistory is that, if antecedents were allowed—the circumstances of the accused—then, by definition, the person with a record would be less likely to be looked on favourably by the court. The court is more likely to think that it can try the case. However, there is a paradox, which has been well put by Justice, which says:
The controversial provision for the court to consider reputation and livelihood, which discriminated in favour of those with apparently good character has been removed; but this is likely to lead to more cases being retained by magistrates. It should be also noted that the new criteria are likely to lead to a new, and diametrically opposite, discrimination. Sentences are likely to be higher in respect of people with previous criminal convictions, who may therefore be outside the court's sentencing powers.
The courts discover that someone has previous convictions and so think that they have too little power to sentence them, so they are sent to the higher court for a trial by jury—

Mr. Hogg: For sentence.

Mr. Hughes: For sentence—and those with previously good character will be more likely to be tried summarily. One old discrimination, namely, reputation, is being substituted for a new discrimination, and neither is a satisfactory resolution. That compares with the old and present alternative, which is that the defendant makes the choice, and has to be accountable only to himself for the choice that he makes.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman will recall that, in the debate on the Football (Disorder) Bill last week, we had a similar discussion about the role of people's past records in deciding what sort of justice would be available to them—in that case, for a police officer. Does the amendment that the hon. Gentleman supports mean that any examination of people's previous records could not be taken into account in deciding whether they had a right to a jury trial?

Mr. Hughes: Liberal Democrats support only amendment No. 19. We do not believe that there should be a revelation of antecedents, and so on. The circumstances of the accused should not come into consideration at the beginning, only the circumstances of the offence; otherwise those with previous convictions are bound to be discriminated against.

Mr. James Clappison: Is it not the nature of the Government's proposal that we are being forced to choose between the lesser of two evils?

Mr. Hughes: That is exactly the issue. We have a perfectly good, workable system, with fewer and fewer

people choosing to go to the Crown court, with lower costs and fewer delays, and we are being offered two definitely less advantageous and less libertarian alternatives. Both alternatives prejudice the defendant. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, we should reject both. Let us stand firm; we should not believe that the Bill can be remedied by the first five amendments in the group.

Mr. Hogg: I want to comment briefly on amendments Nos. 15 and 19. I adopt the same position as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). The Bill is a bad measure, but the question is whether we should accept amendment No. 15. We should not make a bargain because the Bill is bad. However, the measure would be much less bad if amendment No. 15 were incorporated in it.
I accept that there is a perfectly legitimate difference of opinion; I understand that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) take a different view, but I feel strongly that justice requires the courts, when determining venue, to have regard to character and antecedents. I therefore urge the Government, in the interests of making a bad Bill less bad, to accept amendment No. 15, or a similar proposal.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) spoke to amendment No. 19, and I strongly endorse his comments. There is a class of prosecutions which can reasonably be deemed oppressive—or, alternatively, in which the investigation or prosecution process prior to trial has been oppressive. The right of a jury to throw out a case that it believes should not have been brought, because it is oppressive or has been badly handled, is an important safeguard of citizens' liberty.
We would not need amendment No. 19 if we were not embarking on the Bill. However, as we are embarking on it, we need a safeguard that is the same as, or similar to, that advocated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire. I therefore commend amendment No. 19 to the House. I fear that we will not divide on it, but I commend it to those on the Government Front Bench in the hope that Ministers may take the spirit of the amendment on board.

Mr. Clappison: I should have liked to speak for longer, but time moves on quickly, and Government Front-Bench Members need to deal with several matters.
I agree with the views of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). The Government's proposal is wrong in principle, and they have found the worst way in which to implement it. The Bill is a bad measure.

Mr. Leigh: It is obvious from my remarks in Committee, and earlier this evening, that I have considerable sympathy with the Government's objective. I know that some of my hon. Friends, Liberal Democrat Members and the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) rightly take a purist line about the Bill. I understand their view, but we must be aware of the general public's opinion, the cost to the criminal justice system and the widespread view that people who have criminal antecedents abuse that system. That may not be a popular view; hon. Members tend, rightly, to put


civil liberties to the fore. Those who argue the case that I am putting do not always express the opinion of many Back Benchers, who take a purist view. The Government are right to take the action that they propose.
None the less, the Government must listen carefully to the debate. The current Home Office team does that, and its members are generally concerned about the criminal justice system. I hope that Ministers will take away from the debate the clear view from all parties that, whether we are opposed in principle to the Bill or whether we simply seek to amend it, we believe that proposals such as those in amendments Nos. 6 and 15 would considerably improve it. That is a perfectly sustainable argument.
10.45 pm
There is widespread concern that being charged with a small offence such as shoplifting could affect a person's livelihood. I am sure that the Minister accepts that and is trying to find a way forward. I support the amendments, but the hon. and learned Member for Medway eloquently put the alternative view that they would create two classes of justice—and that point was strongly supported by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes). In a sense, they are right. Two classes of justice would be created, as a person without antecedents would have the absolute right to elect for trial by jury and receive gold-plated treatment, while those with antecedents would not have that right. However, we must accept that. In a world that is never ideal, surely it would be better to have justice for some people.

Mr. David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman talks about gold-plated justice. Can he make more explicit his apparent belief that the justice afforded in magistrates courts, whether by lay magistrates or stipendiaries, is substantially inferior to that afforded by the jury system? Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman and I had that debate in Committee. He has a long and distinguished record of service as a magistrate and is rightly convinced, as are all of us who have appeared in magistrates courts, that magistrates are fully equipped to deal carefully with the evidence. They represent the local community, just as juries do, and I recognise where the hon. Gentleman is coming from. He is committed to the magistrates courts system. However, in the previous Parliament a Member, in a fit of absent-mindedness, walked out of the Army and Navy Stores carrying a couple of books. The case went to a summary trial and he was found guilty, but he insisted on trial by jury and appealed to the Crown court. Eventually, he was found not guilty.
Would any Member of Parliament accused of such an offence, which would finish his career, prefer not to go to the Crown court? Let us be honest with ourselves. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) points to himself and says that he would rather go in front of the beak—the London stipendiary magistrate. He would rather appear before my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), but, with respect, I would rather appear before a jury—not case-hardened individuals like my hon. Friend, but people with a fresh insight on the criminal system. That is why this issue is so important to so many people. To dismiss it out of hand by saying that the amendments must be thrown out, and that the Bill is rubbish because we cannot get it absolutely right, is not the right way to proceed.
There is a middle way, which is to proceed, but only after adopting the amendments. They would protect the person of good character who came before the criminal justice system, perhaps for the first time, and allow him to insist on trial by jury. That is an essential compromise. The Government may be unable to accept the amendments tonight, but when they are confronted by the other place—an independent House where they do not have an overwhelming majority, whose members do not come in to vote for whatever is placed before them by the Whips—I hope that they will accept similar proposals.

Mr. Charles Clarke: In the time available to me, I shall make two points. In answer to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—yes, as a Member of Parliament and as an individual, I would be happy to be tried by magistrates. I have great confidence in magistrates. A lack of confidence in them has Iain beneath a great deal of the debate. It was put most clearly by the hon. Gentleman, who said in Committee:
That leads to the question whether we trust magistrates more than judges. I shall not beat around the bush: I trust a judge and jury more than I trust the Bench.—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 May 2000; c. 35.]
He later said that he stood by what he had said. That is at the core of much of the opposition to the Bill. My answer to that is to improve the magistrates system if it needs improving, but to have confidence in it and to promote it.
Secondly, in answer to the points made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), I shall list the offences that are currently dealt with directly by the magistrates without defendants having a choice, although they relate to reputation and dishonesty: assault on a constable, keeping a brothel, cruelty to animals, cruelty or neglect of children, night poaching, stealing, unauthorised taking of a conveyance—

It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the allocation of time motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [this day], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 199.

Division No. 291]
[10.51 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Ainger, Nick
Benton, Joe

Allen, Graham
Berry, Roger

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Betts, Clive

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Blackman, Liz

Ashton, Joe
Blears, Ms Hazel

Atherton, Ms Candy
Blizzard, Bob

Atkins, Charlotte
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Austin, John
Borrow, David

Banks, Tony
Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Barron, Kevin
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Bayley, Hugh
Bradshaw, Ben

Beard, Nigel
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Buck, Ms Karen

Begg, Miss Anne
Burden, Richard





Burgon, Colin
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Butler, Mrs Christine
Hepburn, Stephen

Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Heppell, John

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hesford, Stephen

Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hill, Keith

Caplin, Ivor
Hinchliffe, David

Casale, Roger
Hodge, Ms Margaret

Caton, Martin
Hoey, Kate

Cawsey, Ian
Home Robertson, John

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Chaytor, David
Hope, Phil

Chisholm, Malcolm
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Humble, Mrs Joan

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hutton, John

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Iddon, Dr Brian

Clelland, David
Illsley, Eric

Clwyd, Ann
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Coaker, Vernon
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Coffey, Ms Ann
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Coleman, Iain
Jamieson, David

Colman, Tony
Jenkins, Brian

Connarty, Michael
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Corbett, Robin
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Corston, Jean
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Cousins, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Crausby, David
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Cummings, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Keeble, Ms Sally

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Darvill, Keith
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Dawson, Hilton
Khabra, Piara S

Dean, Mrs Janet
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Denham, John
Kumar, Dr Ashok

Dismore, Andrew
Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Dobbin, Jim
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Laxton, Bob

Donohoe, Brian H
Lepper, David

Doran, Frank
Leslie, Christopher

Dowd, Jim
Levitt, Tom

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Eagle, Maria (L' pool Garston)
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Edwards, Huw
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Efford, Clive
Linton, Martin

Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Ennis, Jeff
Lock, David

Field, Rt Hon Frank
Love, Andrew

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
McAvoy, Thomas

Flint, Caroline
McCabe, Steve

Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McDonagh, Siobhain

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Macdonald, Calum

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McGuire, Mrs Anne

Foulkes, George
McIsaac, Shona

Fyfe, Maria
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McNulty, Tony

Gilroy, Mrs Linda
MacShane, Denis

Godsiff, Roger
Mactaggart, Fiona

Goggins, Paul
Mallaber, Judy

Golding, Mrs Llin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Martlew, Eric

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Meale, Alan

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Merron, Gillian

Grogan, John
Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Miller, Andrew

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Moffatt, Laura

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hanson, David
Moran, Ms Margaret

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Healey, John
Morley, Elliot




Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B' ham Yardley)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Snape, Peter


Soley, Clive

Mountford, Kali
Southworth, Ms Helen

Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Spellar, John

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Steinberg, Gerry

Naysmith, Dr Doug
Stevenson, George

Norris, Dan
Stewart, David (Inverness E)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

O'Hara, Eddie
Stinchcombe, Paul

Olner, Bill
Stoate, Dr Howard

Organ, Mrs Diana
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Osborne, Ms Sandra
Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Palmer, Dr Nick
Stringer, Graham

Pearson, Ian
Stuart, Ms Gisela Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Perham, Ms Linda


Pickthall, Colin
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Pike, Peter L
Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Plaskitt, James
Temple-Morris, Peter

Pollard, Kerry
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Pond, Chris
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Pope, Greg
Timms, Stephen

Pound, Stephen
Tipping, Paddy

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Todd, Mark

Prescott, Rt Hon John
Touhig, Don

Primarolo, Dawn
Trickett, Jon

Prosser, Gwyn
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Purchase, Ken
Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Quinn, Lawrie
Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Tynan, Bill

Rapson, Syd
Vis, Dr Rudi

Raynsford, Nick
Walley, Ms Joan

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Watts, David

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Whitehead, Dr Alan

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Wicks, Malcolm

Roche, Mrs Barbara
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Rooney, Terry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Rowlands, Ted
Wills, Michael

Roy, Frank
Wilson, Brian

Ruane, Chris
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Ruddock, Joan
Woodward, Shaun

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Woolas, Phil

Salter, Martin
Worthington, Tony

Sarwar, Mohammad
Wray, James

Savidge, Malcolm
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Sawford, Phil
Wyatt, Derek

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Tellers for the Ayes:

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.



NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane
Brand, Dr Peter

Allan, Richard
Brazier, Julian

Amess, David
Breed, Colin

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Browning, Mrs Angela

Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Ballard, Jackie
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Barnes, Harry
Burnett, John

Beggs, Roy
Burns, Simon

Beith, Rt Hon A J
Burstow, Paul

Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Butterfill, John

Bennett, Andrew F
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Bercow, John


Bereslord, Sir Paul
Cash, William

Blunt, Crispin
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Boswell, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Clappison, James

Brady, Graham


Brake, Tom






Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Gummer, Rt Hon John

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hague, Rt Hon William


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Harris, Dr Evan

Cohen, Harry
Harvey, Nick

Collins, Tim
Hawkins, Nick

Corbyn, Jeremy
Hayes, John

Cormack, Sir Patrick
Heald, Oliver

Cotter, Brian
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Cran, James
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Curry, Rt Hon David
Hopkins, Kelvin

Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Horam, John

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Hurst, Alan

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Duncan Smith, Iain
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jenkin, Bernard

Evans, Nigel
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Faber, David


Fabricant, Michael
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Fallon, Michael
Keetch, Paul

Fearn, Ronnie
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Fisher, Mark


Flight, Howard
Key, Robert

Flynn, Paul
Kidney, David

Forth, Rt Hon Eric
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Foster, Don (Bath)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Kirkwood, Archy

Fox, Dr Liam
Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Fraser, Christopher
Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Gale, Roger
Lansley, Andrew

Garnier, Edward
Leigh, Edward

George, Andrew (St Ives)
Letwin, Oliver

Gerrard, Neil
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Gibb, Nick
Lidington, David

Gidley, Sandra
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Gill, Christopher
Livsey, Richard

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Gorrie, Donald
Loughton, Tim

Gray, James
Luff, Peter

Green, Damian
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Greenway, John
McCafferty, Ms Chris

Grieve, Dominic
McDonnell, John




MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

McIntosh, Miss Anne
Skinner, Dennis

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

Mackinlay, Andrew
Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Maclean, Rt Hon David
Spicer, Sir Michael

McLoughlin, Patrick
Spring, Richard

McNamara, Kevin
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Madel, Sir David
Steen, Anthony

Mahon, Mrs Alice
Streeter, Gary

Malins, Humfrey
Swayne, Desmond

Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Syms, Robert

Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Tapsell, Sir Peter

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

May, Mrs Theresa
Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Taylor, Sir Teddy

Moore, Michael
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion).

Moss, Malcolm
Tonge, Dr Jenny

Nicholls, Patrick
Townend, John

Oaten, Mark
Tredinnick, David

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Trend, Michael

Öpik, Lembit
Tyler, Paul

Ottaway, Richard
Tyrie, Andrew

Paterson, Owen
Viggers, Peter

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wareing, Robert N

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Waterson, Nigel

Prior, David
Webb, Steve

Randall, John
Wells, Bowen

Redwood, Rt Hon John
Whitney, Sir Raymond

Rendel, David
Whittingdale, John

Robathan, Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Robertson, Laurence
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Willis, Phil

Ruffley, David
Wilshire, David

Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

St Aubyn, Nick
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Sanders, Adrian
Yeo, Tim

Sedgemore, Brian
Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Tellers for the Noes:

Shepherd, Richard
Mr. Peter Atkinson and

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mr. Stephen Day.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Local Government Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 24

PROPOSALS

Lords amendment to Commons amendment No. 10: No. 2, in page 16, line 21, at beginning insert—
("Subject to section (Alternative arrangements in case of certain local authorities), ").

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 15 and 17.

Ms Armstrong: This group of amendments increases the choice that local people will have about how their local communities are governed. The amendments are also consistent with the Government's policy of seeking to ensure that each council acts in a manner that demonstrates openness, accountability and efficiency. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for the amendments, which will enable small shire districts with a population of 85, 000 or fewer to develop their own constitution according to those principles.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: We have already rehearsed quite well the arguments on the Bill. However, the Minister's claim that the amendments increase choice for local government takes the prize for brass-necked effrontery. This has always been the Henry Ford Bill: it offers buyers any colour they want as long as it is black.
Until now, the Bill has presented three options to local councils, but I have yet to find a council that is even remotely interested in the option of a council manager while about 1 per cent. of councils want directly elected mayors. That has left effectively one option for most councils—a cabinet system. More recently, the Government have tried to peddle a bogus fourth option. However, that option still requires an executive system and the Secretary of State's permission, and it applies to categories of council rather than to individual councils.
The official Opposition's attitude to the options has been the same throughout our consideration of the Bill. If the proposals for new local governance are so good and so popular, why not ask people to choose? [Interruption.] If the proposals are so good for local government, why have they been roundly rejected by councils such as Camden and Brighton and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Conversations are being held on both sides of the House, but hon. Members must listen to the hon. Member who is addressing them.

Mr. Waterson: Why have the proposals been criticised so roundly by so many Labour Back Benchers? Why have they been criticised so effectively and clearly by the Labour Campaign for Open Local Government, which consists of 1, 000 members and several hundred Labour

councillors? [Interruption.] The Minister scoffs whenever I mention those facts. However, every time that we have debated these issues, I have challenged her to tell us who actually wants these changes—other than, I assume, Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and a few acolytes in the New Local Government Network and in other new Labour-oriented organisations and lobby groups. Who is calling out for the reforms?
The plain fact is that the Minister was slow hand-clapped at the recent Local Government Association conference because, across the board, local government is not keen on these changes to council structures.
The amendments in this group throw a fascinating light on the Government's attitude to local government—as it does on Liberal Democrat Members' attitude to local government.

Mr. Don Foster: Hear, hear.

Mr. Waterson: I shall come to Liberal Democrat Members in a moment. They will have to be patient, but I will come to them, I promise.
The Government's line has consistently been that the committee system is discredited and out of date, and that it does not fit in with modern requirements. They have also taken the line that it is impossible to have proper scrutiny, transparency and openness without a clear executive scrutiny split. Indeed, the Minister even suggested recently that best value could not work effectively without such a split.
Yet lo and behold, on the basis of the amendments cobbled together between the Government and their friends in the Liberal Democrats, more than 20 per cent. of councils around the country are to be excused the new structures. One asks why that might be.

Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the situation is worse in Wales because not one council will be able to take advantage of the proposal in the new amendment? All the authorities in Wales are unitary, not shire or district authorities, so councils such as my own, which has a small number of residents, will not be able to take advantage of the proposal.

Mr. Waterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because it just shows how, in their hurry to fall over themselves to help the Government out again, the Liberal Democrats forgot about Wales. I hope that the voters of Wales will have regard to the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) has obviously not read the Bill. It contains a subsection which makes it clear that the National Assembly for Wales will determine the future of the legislation in relation to Welsh authorities.

Mr. Waterson: Well, we will leave it to the National Assembly for Wales.

Mr. John Gummer: Will my hon. Friend help the House by explaining why it is suitable to exempt some councils, but not to give other councils the


chance to choose? Why does he suppose that the Minister should try to tell the House that she is extending choice, when all that she is doing is giving a small amount of choice to very small councils?

Mr. Waterson: My right hon. Friend points out accurately that the Minister made no attempt in her perfunctory introduction to explain the logic behind the amendments. The logic is simply that the Government needed the Liberal Democrats' support and, in return for a deal over clause 28, they were prepared to horse-trade—not my word but that used in yesterday's debate by Baroness Hamwee, the Liberal Democrat spokesman in the Lords—to come to a solution. The solution involved the lucky 20-something per cent. of councils. If it is such a great idea, why are the Government still so determined to impose the structures on the other 80 per cent. of councils? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, why are they not to be given the same choice as the 20 per cent?
Obviously, the Opposition welcome the timely escape of the 20 per cent. of district councils with a population of fewer than 85, 000, but what about all the others? If it is good enough for those in that category, why is it not good enough for all councils? Why the arbitrary figure of 85, 000? It has already been suggested in the House of Lords that the measure might be subject to judicial review, but if one out of five councils are to be exempted, why not allow all councils to choose? If the benefits are so obvious, Ministers will be able to demonstrate that many councils will choose to have a cabinet system.
With all due respect to him, the Minister in the other place, Lord Whitty, lost the plot during the debate, but at least he did the courtesy of speaking for rather longer than the Minister for Local Government and the Regions who opened the debate in the House tonight. He said:
Commons amendment No. 10 goes to the heart of the Bill.
He said that the new constitution would give
increased efficiency, transparency and accountability.
He castigated the Opposition, saying that what they proposed was
in total opposition to a main plank of the Bill.
11.15 pm
Lord Whitty continued:
The amendments open the possibility that for certain councils the options for new constitutions from which local people can choose will, in addition to the range of executive constitutions, include constitutions based on a modernised committee system.
With no logical connection, he explained that those small shire district councils are to be exempted, yet he then spoke of
delivering the increased efficiency, transparency and accountability which the Government … wish to see.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 21-22.]
As the Minister for Local Government and the Regions has constantly told this House that we must have such constitutions to deliver transparency, efficiency and accountability, how will that 20 per cent. of councils manage? Answer comes there none.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Perhaps I can answer my hon. Friend by telling him that it is the minority Labour group on Lichfield district council which

is so disappointed that Lichfield, which has a population of 92, 000, will have this new system imposed on it. Is he aware that not only the Labour minority but the Conservative majority believe that the change will cost more, that it will obscure any transparency and will create a democracy deficit in Lichfield?

Mr. Waterson: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point in his usual fashion. The effect of the Government's proposals has been to break down party political barriers on councils such as Lichfield and to unite the parties against what the Government are trying to do.
My hon. Friend alluded to those councils that are on the limits of the exemption. In the House of Lords, yesterday, Lord Hanningfield drew attention to the plight of councils such as Rushmoor, which is unfortunate enough to have a population of 86, 000. Because of that extra 1, 000 people, the full Monty will be imposed on Rushmoor by the Government. I have already referred to the possibility of judicial review. There is also the plight of the other 80 per cent. of councils. They will, in effect, have only one option forced on them.
Our objections to the system have been well rehearsed, but it is worth reminding the House of them. There is the element of compulsion, to which we object profoundly and which has caused great resentment in local government. In many cases, a small group of people will take all the decisions. Some councillors will be consigned to the back benches by the proposals. The role of the officers in the new structures has not been thought through. It is difficult to see how effective scrutiny can be undertaken by such councils as the London borough of Newham, which has 59 Labour members and one independent Labour member. Who on that council will carry out convincing and transparent scrutiny'?
It is not only the official Opposition or even—until a few days ago—the Liberal Democrats who object to the proposals. A range of organisations in and out of local government, Labour councillors, Labour Back Benchers, academics and others have all raised those concerns over and over again.
Until recently, the Government were not prepared to take notice of any of the provisions, but a problem arose because of their lordships' attitude to the Bill. This is where the Liberal Democrats come into the picture—[HON.MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]. I said that I would return to them and I always keep my promises. The amendments reveal as much about the Liberal Democrats as they do about the Government.
As I have explained, in yesterday's debate in the House of Lords Baroness Hamwee admitted to horse-trading. Therefore, there is no pretence from anyone involved in this rather shabby little deal of any principle, of any logic; it is simply a matter of political horse-trading. The Government needed the support of the Liberal Democrats in the Lords on clause 28 and on their structures for local government, and the Liberal Democrats extracted a price. [Interruption.] But that shabby deal points a penetrating shaft of light on the Liberal Democrats' real role and purpose in this Parliament and their true relationship with this Labour Government. It strips away any pretence that the Liberal Democrats are a real party of opposition or, indeed, that they are friends of local government.
The Liberal Democrats helped the Government out on clause 28, and at the same time they sold out 80 per cent. of local government in this country. It is worth reminding


the House of the comments of the principal Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), only a couple of months ago in Committee, when he said:
If councils like the models proposed by the Government, they can…move in that direction, but the structures should not be imposed on them.—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 16 May 2000; c. 158.]
We know that the hon. Gentleman is a Liberal Democrat, but even Liberal Democrats, if only for their own sanity, must be expected to hold the same views for more than a few weeks.
Linked with the Liberal Democrats' deal over these amendments in the Lords was their policy on clause 28. It is the policy that dare not speak its name, because, as far as the Liberal Democrats are concerned, it takes its place alongside their views on legalising drugs and on a federal Europe—the sort of things that people do not expect to see in their local "Focus" leaflets. They are indeed the stealth party of British politics, because if that shrinking band of people who vote for them knew what they stood for, they would not vote for them.
Our views on the Government's proposals for structures are well known. Our reservations have been set out on Second Reading, in Committee, on Report and in the Lords. We have made clear our view that there should be no compulsion. We have made clear our view that the Government are entirely wrong; they are looking at life down the wrong end of the telescope if they think that tinkering with structures will make any difference to local democracy, and if they believe that more people will turn out and vote, or stand for election, as a result of their fiddling with structures.
I do not intend to invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide the House on these amendments. We want at least some councils to benefit from the fourth option, for which we have consistently campaigned. The difference between us and the Government and between us and the Liberal Democrats is that we have always campaigned for that option to be available to all councils, irrespective of size, throughout the country.

Mr. Don Foster: I am delighted to have the great honour to follow the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). His speech was such that it caused his right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to leave the Chamber, and, having listened to the hon. Gentleman, there is no doubt whatever that, to use a phrase that has been used once before, I feel that I have been
savaged by a dead sheep.—[Official Report, 14 June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 1027.]
The sad fact is, however, that the hon. Member for Eastbourne made a large number of comments with which I happen to agree. He and I spent a long time in Committee and we share the clear view that it is totally wrong of central Government to impose on local government how it should organise its decision-making processes. We have consistently made it clear that we are opposed to central Government seeking to do that.
I now come to the decision that we should take, given the position of the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] Conservative Members are concerned about deciding

what to do. Let me remind them that any crocodile tears that they shed for local government are ill placed in view of their party's clear commitment to get rid of, for example, local education authorities and to remove from local government many of its current powers and thereby, in effect, remove any possibility of it having any power whatever.
The Liberal Democrats take a different view. We believe in the importance of strong and vibrant local government. We believe in the importance of local government being given a power of general competence and the ability to carry out all the functions that it believes are in the best interests of the people whom it seeks to serve. It should also have the ability to raise the funds to carry out the activities within the power of general competence. As a result of pressure by Liberal Democrats in Committee, we have achieved that aim in the Bill. Furthermore, as a result of Liberal Democrat pressure, we have persuaded the Government to change their attitude on issues such as whether executives should meet in secret. We have long argued that executives should meet in public and we have now persuaded the Government of that view.

Mr. James Gray: I was interested to hear the hon. Gentleman say that he is strongly in favour of executives or cabinets meeting in public. Is he therefore criticising Liberal Democrat-controlled North Wiltshire district council, which stubbornly insists on meeting in private?

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of my position on this issue. I have said to him in other circumstances that I believe it is important that local councils—whether they are Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat or under no overall control—hold their council meetings in public. I have made it clear to him, as I repeat to the House as a whole, that if there are examples of Liberal Democrat councils not following the recommendations that we make, I shall certainly take it up with them. However, because we genuinely believe that local government should have the power to make such decisions, the ultimate decision on the matter is one for the local council.

Mr. John Bercow: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that his obsequious collaboration with the Government, as reflected most recently in the proposal before the House, has led to the hissing out of office of the ridiculous Liberal Democrats on Aylesbury Vale district council and the reconquest of that authority by sound and distinguished Conservatives?

Mr. Foster: There will be plenty of opportunity for electors across the country to decide whether they believe it is sensible for a political party to seek to persuade the Government to change their view on particular matters, or whether that party should simply hold a position that will not make a blind bit of difference to what happens in local government.
11.30 pm
We are debating whether the House should support an amendment moved in the House of Lords by the Liberal Democrats. The amendment will ensure that at least some


councils are excluded from three proposals that central Government seek to impose on them. The key decision that this House must make is whether to accept that at least some councils—rather than none at all, as the Conservatives would have it—should be given the opportunity to find their own way forward in decision making. The issue is not whether we would tonight persuade the Government to change their view and to drop their imposition of operating methods on all forms of local government, as we would like them to do; it is simply whether all councils in Wales and 82 councils in England will receive the benefit to which I have referred.

Mr. Richard Livsey: I thank my hon. Friend for the valuable negotiations that he has had with the Government to allow the National Assembly for Wales to let councils in Wales decide their own structures.

Mr. Foster: I thank my hon. Friend. It is possible in the Chamber simply to oppose the Government and to get nowhere, but there is another way forward, which is to have constructive opposition and to make at least some progress.

Mr. Fabricant: There are those who think that the Liberal Democrats have woolly minds in woollier hats, so, to demonstrate to the House the Liberal Democrats' thought processes, will the hon. Gentleman explain how he arrived at the figure of 85, 000? Why not set the threshold at 100, 000? Will he explain in detail how the horse-trading worked?

Mr. Foster: No, I will not. I simply say that if the Conservatives had their way, the figure would be zero, and, as a result of their achievements, not a single council would have escaped the imposition of these measures. As a result of what the Liberal Democrats have achieved, at least some councils have escaped. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it would be right for the Conservative party to vote against that concession? Would he vote against it—yes or no?

Mr. Fabricant: If something is wrong in principle, it is wrong for all, and not only for 20 per cent.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman's clear answer is that he is prepared to say to 82 councils in England and all the councils in Wales that are exempt from the Government's proposals as a result of the Liberal Democrats' negotiations that they must have those proposals imposed on them.

Mr. Waterson: Surely the hon. Gentleman accepts that if the amendments that he is peddling are to have a shred of credibility, the least he can do is try to explain to the House how the Liberal Democrats arrived at the figure of 85, 000 to set the line between councils that are exempt and those that are not.

Mr. Foster: It is quite simple. The hon. Gentleman has clearly got himself into a fixed mode of simply opposing and nothing more. In constructively opposing, we realise that the Government are prepared to allow no concessions in respect of any councils. The Liberal Democrats start from the clear position of preferring the provision to be

imposed on no councils. However, knowing that we shall not be able to persuade the Government of that view, we seek at least some exemptions.
I think that we have done extremely well to reach such a position. There are those in the Local Government Association who are absolutely delighted with what we have done and are concerned that they have not had Conservative party support on the issue. The proposal is not the Liberal Democrats' ideal position. We accept entirely that it is a compromise, but, given that, we hope at least that the House will support it.

Mr. John Gummer: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who has managed to give horse-trading a bad name. His difficulty is that when people horse-traded, at least they got a horse; he has a rather miserable camel. He cannot explain the basis of the 85, 000 figure. I wish to debate the issue because I believe he has accepted that figure specifically to exclude my local council and, if I may say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your local council—a good, sensible council in my case and a not so good, not so sensible council in your case, but united in a belief that the Bill is unsatisfactory because it does not give them the chance to choose for themselves.
The Liberals have the effrontery to say that they went in for constructive opposition. Constructive opposition for the Liberals means dropping their principles on clause 28 and the proposed new clause. Constructive opposition is to give way on both clauses and in return get 20 per cent. of the sum of their principles on one.

Mr. Foster: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how the Liberal Democrats have given up on their principle of opposition to clause 28?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Liberals did a deal with the Government in the House of Lords on clause 28. Everyone else knows that; if he does not, he better talk to Baroness Hamwee, who is the expert on horse-trading. They struck that deal by not doing what they had intended originally. The same is true of the proposed new clause, yet they have the effrontery to say that we who have stood by our principles have in some way let the local government world down.
The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted strong and vibrant local government as long as it covered a population of under 85, 000. Cannot it be strong and vibrant while being bigger than that? He is not prepared to stand up and fight for all local government.
I turn to the real villain of the piece, if it is not unparliamentary to say so—the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. I have always doubted whether she had an argument on this point. I did not serve on the Committee, but I have never heard her make the argument in the House. Today, she had an admirable opportunity. She could have explained in detail—we can be here for hours listening to her—why it was necessary for the Government to tell Labour councils that did not want to be told how to run themselves how to do so.
Let us imagine that the proposition had been a Conservative one. Would the right hon. Lady have said, "Oh yes, this is the sort of transparency we want"? No, she would have said, "Labour, Liberal and Conservative councils up and down the country do not want it." Why,


then, is she not saying that now? It is because the Government have become hung up on the proposition and do not know how to get off it. The Liberals gave the Government a chance to get away with 20 per cent., but if they had pushed a bit harder, they might have got 40 per cent. Anyone who can give up one principle can give up many more, so why did the Liberals not give up a few more of their principles and buy a few more votes? They have plenty of principles, most of them contradictory, so they could give up a lot just to get what they want from the Government.
The Minister for Local Government and the Regions has not explained why a population of 85, 000 is all right, but one of 90, 000 is not. She did not even take the opportunity to intervene on my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson). The reason she did not bother is that she knows that she has a parliamentary majority: she will not bother to explain anything about local government affairs so long as she knows that she can ram any measure through the House. That is yet another example of how the Government treat the House with contempt. However, on this occasion, the right hon. Lady is not only treating the House with contempt, but is doing the same to every local authority that has asked her to give it the chance to make the choice itself.
My local authority would like to try different ways of running itself to meet the needs of its electorate—not the right hon. Lady's electorate, but its electorate who choose the authority. Yet her response is to tell my authority that it can choose anything—so long as it is something that she agrees with. The Government will not let the authority make the choice, simply because the population it covers just happens to total more than 85, 000 people. We are not even talking about 85, 000 electors—why did the Liberals not specify electors, rather than just a population threshold? Having given up their principles, could they not have screwed a bit more out of the Government?
The difficulty for the Conservatives is that we are not prepared to give up our principles, because ours is a party of principle. The Liberals' principles change from place to place—

Mr. Adrian Sanders: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gummer: I have a little more to say about Liberal principles and then I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, who no doubt intends to be helpful. He will have to contain himself for a moment, even though he has not got long in the House—his is a seat which will be won by a large Conservative swing at the next general election.
Let us hear about the principles espoused by the hon. Member for Bath. He told us that the Liberal principle was that everything had to hang out—everyone had to know everything and everything had to be done in public. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) pointed out how odd it is that the authority in North Wiltshire—which is not all that far from Bath; indeed, it is the neighbouring constituency—holds closed

meetings. The hon. Gentleman replied that authorities should hold open meetings—but not if they do not want them.

Mr. Don Foster: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gumme: Yes, he did—he said that he would have a word with his colleagues, but that, in the end, they would make up their own mind. That strikes me as an interesting principle: anyone, anywhere can make up their own mind about any principle.
It is apparent that there are differences of principle, not merely between constituencies but between wards. In my constituency, the Liberals espouse different principles in neighbouring wards—indeed, in neighbouring houses. Liberal canvassers bang on the door and ask, "What do you want us to tell you?", and if the householders respond differently, they say different things. As someone said, if God had been a Liberal, we would have had the 10 suggestions. The problem with the Liberals is that their principles are so flexible that they cannot remember what the last one was. Now I give way to the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) who might remember what it was he wanted to ask me when he first rose.

Mr. Sanders: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the Conservative principle in respect of the capping of local authority budgets? What is the latest position on that?

Mr. Gummer: That was a very good principle when local authorities wanted to spend other people's money with a precept on taxation— [Interruption.] Liberal Members fall about with laughter, but, at that time, they did their usual trick: they said that they would give freedom to local authorities, but would not increase taxation—[Interruption.] Like his colleagues, the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) is good at throwing out the odd sentence or two, but in his own constituency finds it difficult to explain Liberal principles. That is because those principles are different from his—his views are different from his neighbours views. Liberals all have different views from their neighbours. It is not surprising that the Government managed to buy off the Liberal Democrats—the price was low.

I turn to the—

Mr. Bob Russell: Sit down; you've lost it.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman, who never had it, cannot tell others that they have lost it.
Fundamentally, we have a dictatorial Government who are using their majority to stop locally elected people deciding how they will run their own council. Liberal Democrats are intervening to try to claim credit for keeping 20 per cent. of councils out of the unacceptable maw which the Minister has presented to us but has never explained.
As usual, the Liberal Democrats have connived yet again in the destruction of democratic choice in local authorities. Like anyone who knows that what is being said is true, their only answer is to giggle. Giggling is the only logic that they can put forward. They cannot explain why 85, 000 is a magic figure. They cannot explain either


why they went for a population of 85, 000 and not an electorate of 85, 000. Similarly, they cannot explain why they have had a special deal for Wales, but only if the Welsh Assembly agrees. They cannot explain the arguments that they advanced to the Government. They cannot explain why they did not hold out for more; nor can they explain why they went back on their principles on this issue and on clause 28. They can explain nothing to us, and that is because they are dealing with the inexplicable.
When we come to the elections next year, Liberal seats will fall one after the other throughout the wards that they fight. It is good to welcome to the Conservative party a Liberal Democrat who has crossed the floor in Bromley for precisely the sort of reasons that have emerged this evening.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: And in New Forest.

Mr. Gummer: Indeed. They cross the floor once they begin to see that the party in Parliament has few real principles, will not stand up for them and then pretends that an abject surrender to the Government is somehow a success. Principles? Of course Liberal Democrat Members have principles. There are as many principles as there are Liberal Democrat Members, and they are all utterly different.

Ms Armstrong: I shall respond fairly briefly. I am not sure whether I should respond to the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who has not been present for many of the debates and so has not heard the arguments that have been advanced. However, I remind him that there was a Joint Committee which asked us to consider how we could make particular arrangements for small councils, especially those that had a history of non-party political control. That is now extremely difficult to define because a Bill that has passed through the House allows for the registration of political parties. Many independent parties—ratepayers, residents and so on—have registered as political parties. We therefore have no sound definition of no political control because everyone is a member of a party. We therefore considered other ways of responding to the Joint Committee's wishes and to the points that were made in Standing Committee.
On that basis, I shall respond to the debate. I assure hon. Members that the principles that are expounded in the Bill of transparency, accountability and efficiency will be required of all councils. It is choice not for councils, but for local people. The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal seems not to have understood that there has been real change in his party's policy. Perhaps he can spend some time talking to his colleagues and catching up.

Mr. Waterson: Can the Minister explain how, in 20 per cent. of councils under the proposals, transparency, efficiency and accountability will be delivered?

Ms Armstrong: Those councils will have to demonstrate that. They will also have to demonstrate that they have effective scrutiny and overview functions built into the way in which they operate.

Mr. Gummer: If that is what councils with a population of less than 85, 000 can do, why cannot

councils with less than 100, 000 or 120, 000 population do likewise? Why cannot my council be given the same choice, and why cannot my electors be given that choice?

Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman's electors, like the electors of every right hon. and hon. Member, will be given substantial choice within the framework of the Bill—much more choice than they are allowed at present.
I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions, and I commend the amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 3 to 15, and 17 agreed to.

Clause 44

INTERPRETATION OF PART II

Lords amendment to Commons amendment No. 120: No. 19, in page 26, line 3, leave out ("paragraph 5A") and insert ("paragraphs 5B to 5I")

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 21, 22 and 31 to 35.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Lords amendments Nos. 31 to 35 add several modifications to the schedule that was introduced into the Bill in the Commons on Report. That schedule sweeps up a number of amendments to the Local Government Act 1972, which are consequential upon the establishment of executives and elected mayors under part II.
Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 are consequential upon amendments Nos. 31 to 35. Amendment No. 22 is a minor drafting amendment.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 21 to 23, and 25 agreed to.

Clause 91

PROHIBITION ON PROMOTION OF HOMOSEXUALITY: BULLYING

Lords Reason:

The Lords disagree to Commons amendment No. 377 for the following Reason:
Because the prohibition on the promotion of homosexuality contained in section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986, as amended by Clause 91 of the Bill, should remain in force.

Ms Armstrong: I beg to move, That this House does not insist on its amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 27 to 29 and 39 to 41.

Ms Armstrong: The House may already know that, following events in the other place last night, the Government have decided not to seek to reintroduce in this Bill the repeal of section 28. I want to start by explaining the reasons for that decision and then to reflect on last night's events.
The House will know that the Bill contains many measures that are vital to the reform of local government. Part I contains new powers for councils to promote the well-being of their communities, and everyone has welcomed those. Parts II and III will replace council structures, give people real choice over how their communities should be governed and tighten up standards of conduct. The clauses on welfare services will improve the quality and diversity of support services to vulnerable people.
As important as the repeal of section 28 is—it is important and it remains important to the Government—we cannot afford to lose the hard work that the Government and Parliament have put into those parts of the Bill; nor can we afford to delay the benefits that they will bring to our communities, so we have decided, with extreme reluctance, not to seek to reintroduce the repeal in this Bill. Therefore, at this stage, for all the reasons that I have outlined, we will not ask the House to oppose the Lords proposals and insist on the Commons amendments.
The arguments in favour of retaining section 28 were never very strong. Much of the concern about the repeal was whipped up by sections of the media, fed by the opponents— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must listen to the Minister.

Ms Armstrong: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my father used to sit in that Chair, and he always said, "No one should ever go into the Chamber having had a drink, because it always shows."
Much of the concern about the repeal was whipped up by sections of the media, fed by the opponents of repeal on a diet of exaggeration, misinformation and sensationalism.
We acknowledge that parents in particular are concerned that effective safeguards are in place to ensure that children and young people are taught in an appropriate and supportive way in schools. That is why we worked with the Churches and others to bring forward the comprehensive measures in the Learning and Skills Bill.
From last night's debate in the other place, we learned again of the difficulty that the unelected House has in passing any legislation that strengthens the rights of the gay and lesbian community. We learned again of the corrosive effect that misinformation and misrepresentation can have on public opinion, stirring up unnecessary fears and then playing those back as a reason to justify obduracy and intolerance.
Most importantly, we learned what lies behind the sentiments of the hard core of section 28 enthusiasts. The leaders of the campaign against repeal like to mask their views behind concerns for educating young children and protecting taxpayers' money. We have dealt with the first concern in the Learning and Skills Bill; the second never amounted to much. Why, therefore, do the enthusiasts continue to argue for the retention of section 28?

12 midnight
Every now and then, the mask slips. It slipped last night. Baroness Young said that, if section 28 was repealed, it
will be legal to promote gay rights in citizenship lessons, which, I understand, are shortly to become compulsory.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 102.]
In other words, the champions of section 28 made it clear that it is not only the promotion of homosexuality—whatever that means—that causes them problems, but teaching children that minorities, like everyone else, have human rights and that they should be regarded as equal citizens.
We also heard about fears that bordered on paranoia—for example, that teachers might promote homosexuality through English and history lessons to get round the Government's guidelines. What does that reveal about the trust that section 28 enthusiasts place in our teachers, and in the parents and others who sit on governing bodies and control what is taught in our schools?
During the many debates that we have held on section 28, the Government have been accused of being obsessed with the issue. But who are the real obsessives? What sort of world do they think that we live in? What sort of education do they want our children to receive? We heard the answer last night.
Section 28 was born out of a climate of prejudice and discrimination. It was introduced by a Conservative Government who were intent on dividing our society. The defenders of section 28 want to perpetuate a society in which gay men and lesbians are regarded as second-class citizens with second-class rights; a society in which legitimate concerns for children and young people are replaced by irrationality, fear and intolerance; a society that creates the climate for homophobic bullying and other violent assaults on gays and lesbians. Those views unfortunately held sway last night. They must not be allowed to triumph.
Labour Members remain committed to the repeal of the unnecessary and divisive legislation. Legislation on children is clear; section 28 adds confusion, which led to problems in the past. We believe that the section must go.

Mr. Don Foster: The Minister said clearly that the Government believe that section 28 should be repealed as quickly as possible. What measures do the Government intend to introduce to ensure that that happens?

Ms Armstrong: We are committed to repealing section 28. I have discussed that with colleagues throughout the Government today. We will continue to consider the precise way in which we intend to repeal the legislation. We want to ensure that we get it through not only this House, but the House of Lords. We will, therefore, have to introduce the most appropriate measure, as soon as we are able, to ensure that we repeal the legislation and make it clear that we want both a tolerant and supportive society for all our citizens, and proper respect and protection for children at school.

Dr. Evan Harris: With respect, the Minister has not answered the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). Members on both sides of the House who support her view want to know whether she can guarantee that the


Government will repeal section 28 in the lifetime of this Parliament by any means other than insisting on the measure.

Ms Armstrong: Given the views of the House of Lords, which is blocking repeal, I am unable to give that assurance. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member long enough to know that, whatever we do about the House of Lords this side of the election, the procedures of this House do not allow any Minister to guarantee that the Government will get legislation through in any given period. We are not in a position to give such a guarantee and—unlike others, perhaps—I am not prepared to mislead the House in any way. However, the House must understand that we will find ways in which to repeal the legislation.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). Can she say categorically whether the Government will introduce in the next Session, which will start in November, a Bill that will carry into law the Labour party manifesto commitment to repeal section 28?

Ms Armstrong: As I explained to the hon. Members for Bath (Mr. Foster) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), whatever we do—even if we introduce a simple Bill in the next Session—we will be unable to guarantee that it will get through both Houses and pass into law this side of the general election.

Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: Constituents have written to me in confidence to express their heartfelt feelings—their desire for us to repeal the legislation. My right hon. Friend will be aware that they are vulnerable people and that we must represent them here. The last thing that they need is the door slamming in their face because of procedural matters relating to the House of Lords. Surely she agrees that it is our duty to find a procedure that will finally remove the legislation from the statute book. Section 28 must be repealed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Lady is making a speech, not an intervention.

Ms Armstrong: We are determined to find the most effective way to get legislation to repeal section 28 through both Houses and on to the statute book. It is our responsibility to find a means to do that that we know to be effective. As my hon. Friend says, we must not wind people up only to disappoint them, and we are considering ways to introduce effective measures to ensure that section 28 goes. I have made the Government's views absolutely clear to the House. Those views are shared across the Government and we want to find ways to repeal this pernicious and prejudicial legislation. We will do what we can to achieve that, but we must be effective.

Mr. Phil Willis: This is one of the most cowardly acts by the Government. They believe that it is far more important to save the provisions in the Bill that bully councils into accepting structures than it is to save a principle that the Minister has spent 15 minutes arguing for.

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman may well read his remarks tomorrow and think about them. He, as a council

leader, and members of his council have urged on me the importance of the promotion of well-being and the duty of community planning contained in the Bill. His friends on the Local Government Association are determined that the Bill should go through. They want to ensure that we repeal section 28, and so do I. Sending the Bill back to the Lords would not achieve either the repeal of section 28 or the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Stephen Twigg: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will not be distracted by Conservative Members who want to uphold bigotry and prejudice—we have no doubt about that. I believe that the overwhelming majority of people on both sides of the House want to secure the repeal of section 28 at the earliest opportunity. Let us do that in a way that can be successful. From working with my right hon. Friend over the past three years, I have no doubt of her commitment and that of the Government to doing what the people on the Tory Benches do not want them to do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) that in the House we refer to each other as hon. Members.

Ms Armstrong: We have consistently worked with anyone who is interested in finding a way forward that reassures parents and repeals section 28, which has supported prejudice. We want to tackle intolerance and prejudice.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank the Minister for giving way a second time. She will recall the number of attempts that have been made ever since section 28 was introduced to get rid of it, and this is yet another. I want to hear from her exactly by what means the Government intend to introduce clear legislation with a chance of getting through before the end of this Parliament. Otherwise, people will feel that once again the whole issue has been fudged, and the criminalisation of young people will continue as a result of this legislation.

Ms Armstrong: I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that we are determined to find the most effective way of getting rid of section 28. It is because I want to work with others in the House to ensure its repeal that I am not able to tell my hon. Friend the precise way of doing it. We must work effectively with all supporters of repeal. I am determined to do that, and will continue my efforts. By so doing, we will get rid of section 28 more quickly than we would if I made declaratory statements tonight that might not in the end deliver this objective as quickly and as effectively as we want.

Mr. Waterson: Some Ministers are capable of making a graceful retreat, but the Minister is not one of them. As she well knows, we support aspects of the Bill and tried to improve them in Committee. It is no good going on about the good things in the Bill and how they would be prejudiced by holding the line on section 28. The plain truth is that this proposal should never have been tacked on the end of the Bill in the first place.

Mr. Stephen Twigg: The hon. Gentleman has just told the House that the measure should not have been included in the Bill. In 1988, however, it was perfectly acceptable


to implement the provision that we seek to repeal via a local government Bill. Was that an error on the part of the then Conservative Government?

Mr. Waterson: The hon. Gentleman will know, as he served on the Standing Committee—with some distinction, but in considerable silence—[Interruption.] Admittedly, he spoke more often than most. Anyway, as the hon. Gentleman will know, I have always suspected that the Government tacked this proposal on to the Bill simply to draw attention away from the major changes that they sought to make to local government.
The Minister's next point was that this had all been got up by the media, which had produced a storm of opposition across political parties and across the country, and had persuaded all major religious leaders to oppose the Government's plans. That is not convincing either. Almost as unconvincing was the Minister's blaming what she called the unelected House. According to the leader of her party in the House of Lords, that House now enjoys greater legitimacy as a result of the reforms. The Minister spoke of the chances of anything happening this side of an election to continue reform of the Lords. That is in the hands of the present Government, who have signally failed to do anything.
The Minister talks of "obsessives". Who are the real obsessives? I believe that they are sitting on the Government Benches tonight.
I will not get into the argument about homophobic bullying yet again, but—hopefully for the last time—let me make this point: bullying, whatever its cause or excuse, is wrong, and any teacher worth his or her salt should crack down on it ruthlessly.
There is an element of covering old ground in this debate, and I will not cover as much of it as I could. I will say, however, that it is the Government who have chosen to waste so much valuable legislative time on this issue. As I have said, the Minister referred to obsessives. The Government's actions reveal their obsession with the "PC" aspects of the proposal, and with the views of the chattering classes.

Ann Keen: rose—

Mrs. Fitzsimons: rose—

Mr. Waterson: I am spoilt for choice. I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen).

Ann Keen: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the "obsessive" desire of Conservative Members and those in another place to disregard the strong advice of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Childline, Barnardos and all the other children's and young people's organisations? Why are they so obsessive about denying the evidence adduced by those bodies, and their recommendation that the evil situation brought about by section 28 should be ended by the repealing of that section? Why oh why do Conservative Members continue to ignore that advice?

Mr. Waterson: I am afraid the hon. Lady is plain wrong. Only the other day, in a written answer, the hon.

Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pointed out that the NSPCC and Childline did not have corporate views on the issue. The hon. Lady should do her homework.
As I have said, it is the Government who have chosen to proceed on this course. It is they who have got themselves into their present position. Conservative Members believe that this is simply a smokescreen to draw attention away from the major parts of the Bill.
The Government suffered a crushing and well-deserved defeat in the Lords last night. It was a victory for common sense. As on other issues, it was the House of Lords which stood up for the British people against a patronising, out-of-touch Government run by and for a liberal elite.

Mrs. Fitzsimons: Would the hon. Gentleman care to put it on record that he agrees with, I think, the majority of people that homophobia is wrong, evil and pernicious? Does he agree that the problem is that the debate surrounding the issue has legitimised homophobia, and will he dissociate himself and his party from any such sentiments?

Mr. Waterson: With respect, I think that it is that sort of argument which has clouded the issues.
I feel sorry for the Minister, because she has been left to carry the can this evening. Not a single member of the Cabinet is present. [Interruption.] Here we are. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, right on cue, as befits the master of theatrics in our country, has appeared, but, apart from him, not a single member of the Government is on the Front Bench—not the Deputy Prime Minister, who leads the Department of the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, nor any other Minister.
The Prime Minister is rapidly backing off this piece of legislation.

Mr. Stephen Twigg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Waterson: No, I will make some progress.
If we turn to the famous memo that was written by the Prime Minister himself, are we to presume that he no longer regards this as an eye-catching initiative with which he would want to be personally associated? To quote his memo:
It is bizarre that any Government I lead should be seen as anti-family.
If it is so important to the soul of the Labour party that the section be abolished or repealed, why was it not a pledge in the manifesto? At least the Liberal Democrats can claim that it was in their manifesto. They take some pride in that, even though, as I have said, it is unlikely to appear in their Focus leaflets in Eastbourne or anywhere else. [Interruption.] I should be happy to give way on that point.
There has been a sudden flood of guidance on the issue of sex education. We welcome those guidances as far as they go, but, in part, they are designed to get the Government off a hook of their own making.
Both Lord Whitty in the Lords yesterday and the Minister tonight seem to have been labouring under the misapprehension that it is all about protecting minority


rights. They have that protection elsewhere in law. The provision has only ever been of a narrow effect. That was made clear by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who was the Minister dealing with section 28. He said:
I recognise that there may be a need for teachers to touch on the subject of homosexuality in the classroom.
He went on to say:
objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, in the way that I suggested a short time ago, would be perfectly proper, because it is not promotion of homosexuality.—[Official Report, 15 December 1987; Vol. 124, c. 1019.]
That is borne out by the memorandum attached to that legislation.

Dr. Harris: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, section 28 states that it will not be permissible to teach the acceptability of homosexuality, which is clearly saying that homosexuality is unacceptable. How can that be an objective discussion of a sexuality which someone has not chosen but happens to be? How is it an objective discussion to deny someone the ability to teach that something is acceptable?

Mr. Waterson: That is not what the section says. We have had debates on that very subject and quoted teachers who said that they felt able under the legislation to discuss homosexuality with pupils on the general level, but also with specific pupils who had that particular issue to raise, so I do not think that there is anything in that point.
In passing, I commend Conservative councils such as Kent, which said that, if the measure passed, they would make their own local rules to have the same effect.
To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons), section 28 has never been about prejudice, bigotry and intolerance. It has a limited but important impact. It is a guarantee to parents and to council tax payers that local authorities will not spend public money on promoting homosexuality in schools. That is how to cut through the verbiage and the posturing.
Perhaps the saddest aspect of all is that the Government have not learned the lesson of this pitiful debacle. They have still not seen the light. They have promised—although they will not tell us how—that they intend to return to the repeal of section 28 at some vague time. Frankly, instead of talking in those terms, they should apologise to parents, teachers and religious leaders throughout the country. They should apologise to the House and to the Lords for wasting so much precious legislative time on this metropolitan obsession. Above all, they should apologise to the British people for trying to foist this tawdry piece of political correctness on them.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: It was not my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions—who has spoken so strongly and forcefully in this debate—who dropped this poisonous incubus into the Local Government Bill. Conservative Members and their supporters in the other place have whipped up the issue, making it the issue that it has become. No amount of posturing or crocodile tears, with statements that they are concerned about issues such as homophobic bullying, can disguise the fact that they have deliberately orchestrated and augmented the bigotry that has surrounded section 28. In 1986, when the Bill was

first debated, Lord Willis described clause 28 as the first page of a "charter for bigots". A charter for bigots it was, and a charter for bigots it remains.
Conservative Members are pretending that the provision is nothing to do with bigotry and everything to do with protecting children and the rights of people in schools, but they have paid no attention whatsoever to the details of the Learning and Skills Bill or to the guidance that the Government have introduced, including the very wise amendments tabled in the other place by the Bishop of Blackburn. If Conservative Members had any honesty, they would admit that, bit by bit, any rationale for defending section 28 has been stripped away, both by the changes that the Government have made and by the way in which their opposition has been conducted, particularly in the other place.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) accuses hon. Members of being obsessive about the issue. How dare he say that? If it were an issue of protecting the position of black people in society, would he accuse us of being obsessive? If it were an issue of protecting the position of Jewish people in society, would he consider it obsessive? If it were a question of protecting the rights of women in society, would he consider it obsessive?

Mr. Stephen Twigg: Does my hon. Friend agree that, unfortunately, some of them would—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) is giving way, he should himself resume his seat.

Mr. Marsden: I give way.

Mr. Twigg: The point that I was seeking to make to my hon. Friend is that those of us who have listened to the debates on the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill will know that, sadly, some Opposition Members would consider concern with those issues to be obsessive.

Mr. Marsden: My hon. Friend may be right in that assessment, but I would exempt the vast majority of Opposition Members from it.

Mr. Twigg: What about the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)?

Mr. Marsden: I am not looking at that hon. Gentleman.
The important issues that have to be addressed in our consideration of the Bill are protection, fundamental rights and public health. One of the dangers and detrimental effects of retaining section 28 is that it seriously hobbles the advice that local authorities are able to give. If Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Member for Eastbourne, are serious about not wishing to promote a climate of homophobia, they could do no better than go to Baroness Young and tell her to call off her dogs of war from the Christian Institute, whose members are going across the country fomenting difficulties.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Marsden: No, I will not give way.
Labor Members, like all people of sense and reason in this place, want to see the end of section 28 as soon as possible. We accept that that has to be done in a manner that does not allow the bigots in the other place a field day by going round this course again. One thing, however, is extremely important. I said that Members of the other place had dropped a poisonous incubus into the Bill. I stand by that. Baroness Hamwee said last night:
I regard Section 28 as bad legislation. If it is not repealed today, what effect will that have? Reference has already been made to the certificate attached to the Bill. Will the Bill, when enacted, be incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights? Will it contravene our own Human Rights Act, which comes into force into October?—(Official Report, House of Lords, 24 July 2000; Vol. 616, c. 1181
Those were powerful and relevant comments. They will be taken on board and, whether or not section 28 is ruled null and void in the near future by action in this House, which is what many of us profoundly wish, my belief is that, one way or another, it will be consigned to the dustbin of history, where it so deservedly belongs. It will be so consigned not just because of the views of the British people on fairness and tolerance, but because it is bad law and it contravenes the Human Rights Act.

Mr. Don Foster: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), not least because in his closing remarks he referred to the words spoken in another place last night by Baroness Hamwee. She made the Liberal Democrat position clear. As the hon. Gentleman has just said, she put a number of questions to Lord Whitty about whether the Bill could be said to comply with the European convention on human rights if the content of section 28 were retained. The House should be aware that, in response to Baroness Hamwee, Lord Whitty made clear the Government's view that if section 28 continued to be part of the Bill, the legislation would not conform with the convention.
Although I do not agree with the position of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on this issue, I am delighted that he at least had the good grace to draw attention to the fact that the Liberal Democrats were the only political party that had the courage to include their commitment to repeal section 28 in their general election manifesto. Lest there be any doubt, let me say that the Liberal Democrats remain absolutely committed to the repeal of section 28.
I have enormous regard in many ways for the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), but he misled the House when he suggested that the Liberal Democrats had been involved in a deal on section 28. He is simply and absolutely incorrect on that issue. We have been and we continue to be implacably opposed to section 28. The Liberal Democrats will do everything possible to bring about the abolition of section 28 at the earliest possible opportunity. We recognise, of course, that the procedures both in this House and in another place will make that difficult. That gives credence to our view that it is a matter of urgency that we get on with the further repeal of the House of Lords as quickly as possible.

Dr. Harris: Reform.

Mr. Foster: Yes. Perhaps that was an inadvertent slip, but it is one that I happen to believe in.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne accused the Minister of not being prepared to make a graceful retreat. I am delighted that the Minister is not making a graceful retreat on this issue.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, not least because he was referring to what was said by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), whose comments from the Conservative Front Bench traduced what the children's charities are saying. They are saying that the problem is real. To suggest that those involved in a charity such as Childline do not worry about the issue is a gross distortion of reality. The hon. Gentleman, his party and others who support the failure to repeal section 28 must bear that responsibility, and recognise that tonight, there are children who are not protected and who are suicidal and that, in the next year—[Interruption.]—some will die—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not addressing the House—he is making an intervention.

Mr. Foster: None the less, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says, because he draws our attention to a very real issue. It has been suggested, both in this House and in another place, that there is no evidence that section 28 has had any impact in causing homophobic bullying.
In reality, however, there is real evidence that section 28 has a direct impact on many young people. For example, many teachers—whether by design or through misunderstanding—have been put in a difficult position, or have chosen not to deal with homophobic bullying. There is clear evidence that such bullying has led not only to serious problems for individual children but, in at least one well documented case, to the loss of life. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to that matter.
Section 28 was undoubtedly born of prejudice against gay and lesbian people. There are four reasons for Liberal Democrats' consistent opposition to it. First, we genuinely believe that the legislation is based on discrimination on the grounds of people's sexual orientation. Secondly, we are firmly of the view that the provision is redundant in respect of schools.

Mr. Damian Green: About 45 seconds ago, the hon. Gentleman said that section 28 was the source of all sorts of evils. Now he says that it is irrelevant. He cannot hold both positions. He might hold one or the other, but not both.

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman is wholly wrong— [Interruption.] If he wants an explanation, I shall give him one.
There is no doubt that the existence of section 28 on the statute book has led some teachers—rightly or wrongly, because of their interpretation of the legislation—not to take action in the face of observed homophobic bullying. There is evidence to back up that claim; it is a fact.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Name a school.

Mr. Foster: I have previously referred to the research carried out by my noble Friend Lord Tope, and I made it


clear that my noble Friend is prepared to send details of that research to any right hon. or hon. Member who wants to study it.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made the accusation that I could not say that the provision was redundant. It is redundant. As hon. Members are well aware, in recent legislation the House has provided that decisions on sex education in schools should be made not by local education authorities but by the teachers, parents and governors of individual schools. The provision is thus redundant because it refers to activities that are assumed to be the responsibility of LEAs but in which they cannot, in fact, be involved.
Thirdly, section 28 is a meaningless piece of legislation for the simple reason that it is impossible to define the word "promote" in the phrase "promote homosexuality". Indeed, I would go so far as to say that it is not possible to promote homosexuality. Some people seem to suggest that that is of exactly the same order as, for example, promoting an interest in train-spotting—or even in joining the Conservative party. The two things are simply not the same, and it is simply not possible to promote homosexuality.
Fourthly and finally, as I said, I believe that section 28 has led to confusion in the minds of many teachers as to how to address the issue of homosexuality in our society.
I hope that it is absolutely clear to the House that we are implacably opposed to the continuation of section 28, and that we will work with all those, of whatever political party and of none, whose desire it is to see it abolished. Further, we wish that abolition to take place as quickly as possible.
The Minister has made it clear that the Government are anxious for section 28 to be abolished, but she has failed to tell us how quickly that is to be done, or by what mechanism. We shall work with her as long as it is absolutely clear that the Government's desire is to see the abolition of section 28 at the earliest possible opportunity—and I say to her that that can be achieved. It can be achieved by the introduction of a single clause Bill, even during the spillover period of this Parliament, at least to test the waters. It would be an example of good faith on the part of the Government, and show that they were prepared to work with those who, like us, oppose section 28, to see whether that would be an appropriate mechanism.
I very much hope that before this debate is out, we shall hear more from the Minister about a commitment to speed, and some indication of the procedure by which we shall achieve the end that I believe she and I share.

Mr. John McDonnell: I shall speak on the narrow point of strategy that has been discussed this evening. I was in local government for 25 years before I entered the House, and I know and understand the importance of the Bill to many of our colleagues in local government, and the powers that it can confer on local councillors to do good in our communities.
However, I was also in local government in 1987. I was chief executive of a local government organisation when the clause that eventually became section 28 appeared, and I was therefore an officer advising local authorities on its effects. To be frank, we know why it was brought

forward—as part of a homophobic campaign, as other campaigns have been waged against other minority groups in advance of elections and for political gain.

Dr. Lewis: I think that the hon. Gentleman's memory is slightly at fault. I remember that the provision was brought forward in the light of publications like "Jenny lives with Eric and Martin", which were being put into schools, to the dismay of many parents.

Mr. McDonnell: There was an element of publicity surrounding publications like that, but I thought that the debate had moved forward from then, because in the discussions that took place about such publications, many of us learned many lessons. I believed that local government must come to terms with its powers and its relationship with schools as the education authority across a range of such matters. At that stage, I thought that we had moved forward. The first few years after 1987 were difficult, but after that there was an informed debate.
I genuinely thought that all political parties had moved on. I thought that we had all learned lessons about our relationship to minority groups, about mutual respect, and about how legislation should be used to protect, rather than undermine, human rights.
That is why I say, just on this narrow strategic or tactical point, that although I respect the need for the local government legislation, I also respect the role that the House should play in the protection and promotion of human rights. I pay tribute to Members, such my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg), who have worked hard to shape the legislation so that it satisfies all concerned.

Mr. Woodward: Last year, the shadow cabinet of the Conservative party thought that, as a matter of human rights, this issue was worth two minutes' discussion. It thought that the views of every children's charity, the National Union of Teachers and all those interested in the protection of children merited just two minutes' consideration. What does my hon. Friend think about that in the context of human rights?

Mr. McDonnell: I was hoping that when we debated this issue 13 years on from 1987, we would come at it with mature reflection about the implications for our communities—the minority and the majority—and that we would have learned lessons from what has happened. The Lords have thrown out every compromise that has been offered to them—in some cases, the compromises went too far—and sent us the message that section 28 should remain in force. If there is to be a constitutional battle between the elected House and the unelected House, let us have it on the issue of human rights.
As a matter of tactics, we should send the Bill back to the Lords. If we have to stay another couple of weeks to debate the issue and confront the unelected House on a key issue—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh when I suggest that perhaps we should work for an additional fortnight. Most of my constituents will have at best two weeks' holiday this summer, so why do we not stay here to confront the House of Lords? Why do we not draw a line in the sand on this fundamental issue of


human rights? On that basis, I give notice that I shall not vote to accept this part of the Bill. I will call a Division, because we should send the Bill back to the Lords to say clearly that we will not accept an unelected House undermining our promotion of human rights.

Mr. Gummer: The problem is that the Government have not convinced the majority of people of the sense of repealing section 28. I say that, even though I have a long record of taking what many would describe as a liberal view on this issue. However, in her representation of the debate in the other place, the Minister missed out some serious speeches and, in particular, that of the Bishop of Winchester, who cannot in any circumstances be referred to as a bigot. It does not help our discussion of the issue if both sides of the House merely shout "bigot" at each other.
We have to face up to the fact that the majority of people in Britain have not been convinced that it is sensible to allow the promotion of homosexual behaviour in schools. Every test of public opinion has shown that fact to be true. It is also true that, in the past, the House of Lords has shown itself to be more liberal than the House of Commons. The reform of the laws that made homosexual behaviour criminal was very much made possible by the House of Lords. Criticism of the other House in these circumstances seems to be unjust and historically inaccurate.
Are we taking seriously the debate that took place in the other place? Some people are bound to express themselves badly on such matters and others have a deep-seated antagonism to this particular minority. However, it does not help the debate to suggest that everybody who has doubts about the repeal of the section is in that category. I beg the right hon. Lady to take seriously the fact that people such as the Bishop of Winchester speak for the majority, and in a democracy she needs to convince the majority before she makes this change.

Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman said that we had failed to convince people on the question whether local authorities should promote homosexuality in schools. We have made it clear in the Learning and Skills Bill that local authorities have no role at all in the teaching of sex education in schools. There is a role for governors, in consultation with parents, to determine what is taught and how it is taught, and they must take account of guidance from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment. The right hon. Gentleman continues to push the point about section 28 when it is absolutely clear that the law does not relate to what he is speaking about.

Mr. Gummer: The right hon. Lady is missing the point, which is simply that the Government seek to repeal section 28 when it is clear that the majority of people in Britain do not support that. The House of Lords, in its decision, has echoed the voice of the majority. I merely say to the right hon. Lady that if she is to be credible in this matter, she needs to be able to show that she has the support of the majority, which she should be able to do if her case is as watertight as she makes out. What worried me about her opening remarks is that she simply spoke loudly about people who have genuinely sought to discuss the issue.
I want to put three simple points to the right hon. Lady. If section 28 does not mean anything, why has she tried to introduce this measure so often, with such obsessive pressure? If, on the other hand, it is meaningful, why is it wrong to say that society is tolerant but is not neutral on the matter because it does not want homosexual activity to be promoted? That is not a homophobic position; it is a perfectly reasonable position which happens to be shared by the majority of people in Britain. If the right hon. Lady does not think it reasonable, she must convince the majority of her position. She has not done so.
Thirdly, we may live in a secular society, but it is serious when the Government decide that they will ride roughshod over opposition from the Churches and other faith groups. Again, I recommend that the right hon. Lady read the speech by the Bishop of Winchester, who expressed the deep Christian view of the majority of churchgoers in this country, who should not be ignored or called bigoted. The right hon. Lady suggested that every one of those people was bigoted. That is a great pity, and I hope that she will withdraw the remark.

Mr. Tom Levitt: She did not say that.

Mr. Gummer: I hope that when the right hon. Lady reads Hansard, she will realise that it is at least reasonable to infer that from what she said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am trying to be as polite as possible; the right hon. Lady made it clear that she thought that everybody on the other side of the argument was bigoted. I am prepared to say that I may be mistaken, but she ought to read her words.
If the right hon. Lady maintains her view, will she explain to the House whether she wants homosexual behaviour to be promoted? Is that what she wants? If not, what is wrong with having a section that prohibits it? She has not answered that question because she has never faced up to it. I remind her that when I tried to get the Government to agree to insert specific words about the promotion of marriage, they turned down that amendment. Would not it be an odd world in which we were allowed, by the repeal of a measure, specifically to promote homosexuality, but not specifically to promote marriage?

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: I do not want to rehearse the arguments all over again; they have been rehearsed quite enough times. Most Labour and Liberal Democrat Members, and even some Conservative Members who, sadly, do not have the courage of their convictions, share my depression.
I should, however, correct the false assertion of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) and, I am sorry to say, the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), about the position of the Churches. As far as I am aware, the only Church leader in the United Kingdom who has spoken clearly against the repeal of section 28 has been the Catholic Cardinal Winning in Scotland. The majority of the Church of England bishops in the House of Lords yesterday voted with the Government. [Interruption.] Conservative Members can check Hansard if they have the energy. I have it in front of me; the ratio of Church of England bishops who voted with the Government was about 6:2. So, please, no more of Conservative Members trying to claim that they talk on behalf of the Churches. The Churches are divided. Many decent Christians, such as myself and other Labour Members, believe that the legislation is pernicious and needs to go.
Is not the real issue facing us that, once again, the overwhelming will of the democratically elected House of Commons has been thwarted by an unelected House of Lords which is riddled with homophobia? Does my right hon. Friend the Minister agree—I hope that she will assure us in her winding-up speech—that the Government have a moral obligation to deal with the matter in a stand-alone Bill as soon as possible, to respect the House's overwhelming will?
I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell). I do not see what would be achieved by a ping-pong session between this House and the House of Lords all summer, giving Baroness Young more publicity for her homophobia and bigotry. That is the last thing that we and vulnerable young gay and lesbian people need. I beg him not to do what he said he would do.
May I point a way forward for my right hon. Friend and her fellow Ministers? Does not this problem show that the time has come to stop pussyfooting about extending human rights legislation? Is there now not an overwhelming case in Britain for a Government Bill or a manifesto commitment—I do not mind which—to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation wherever it occurs, to deal with the subject once and for all? Would that not also have the advantage of putting clear blue water between a Labour party that is committed to basic human rights for all and a Tory party that is mired in homophobia and hypocrisy?

Mr. Simon Thomas: The tone of some of the comments, particularly the sedentary ones, has been especially unpleasant and not made for healthy debate. As somebody on the Opposition Benches who has supported the Government throughout on the matter, I am disappointed that they have not been prepared to press forward and seen fit to take the Bill through both Houses again.
We have heard much from Conservatives Members, who are great traditionalists, about the will of the people, but if this House cannot express the will of the people, what is the point of it? As this House has many times made its view on repeal of section 28 very clear, surely the matter should be taken forward. It is a great pity that, for practical reasons at this stage in the Session, we cannot do so. It is also a pity that, more than anything, the section 28 issue has characterised the Bill. There are more important issues in it that the Lords and Conservative Members could have tackled.
The Government could have done one of two things when it came to section 28. They could have let it wither on the vine. It has already been superseded by the role of governors in sex education in schools. It would certainly have been superseded by European legislation on equality. In fact, we voted earlier on a motion on such draft regulations.
However, having chosen to open the debate, the Government must accept that they have triggered an upsurge of prejudice and fear. I have seen that fear during many difficult discussions in my constituency, especially with Christian groups. I believe that, for the most part, that fear is born, not out of prejudice, but out of ignorance of what section 28 is or is not achieving, and of the Government's intentions. With respect, I suggest that the Government left a gap at the start of the process, when it

was not clear what the Bill would contain and many ordinary Members of Parliament had difficulty determining the path that the Government had plotted for us. There was a lack of leadership and the Government are reaping the consequences of that.
I urge the Government to show that leadership. From the Prime Minister down, they have made it clear that they want the repeal of section 28, and it is clear that they have the support of the majority of Members of Parliament. Therefore, there is the parliamentary will to achieve that end. It is incumbent on the Minister for Local Government and the Regions to state tonight how the Government intend to proceed. I understand that she cannot make any guarantees and I respect that, but Ministers have had time in the past 24 hours to consider the next step. Will that next step consist of a short, sharp Bill, or of amendments to other Bills?
The Government should make it a priority to cure a pain in our public policy that is thwarting sensible discussion of what should be taught in schools. Irrelevant though the issue is, it is distorting that debate. The Government should give a clear commitment tonight that they will sort the matter out, once and for all, that they will allow Parliament to sort it out, and that it will not be left to drag on for much longer.

1 am

Mr. Corbyn: I was a Member of Parliament in 1987, when the awful clause 28 was introduced. I remember the homophobic speeches that were made at the time, the prejudice displayed by the Government of the day, and the effect outside Parliament. Homophobic bullying was given easy passage, which resulted in the isolation and punishment of many young gay and lesbian people, who were left in terror. Ask anyone who works with organisations such as Childline about that period and what has happened since then, and they will say the same.
There is no division of opinion among Labour Members on whether we should get rid of section 28. The issue has been discussed for a long time within the Labour party and the broader community. Many of us have fought elections, and been elected, making a clear stand against section 28 and the homophobia goes with it. I am proud that my party has done that.
However, the issue tonight is essentially one of tactics. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) made a powerful speech in which he, rightly, pointed out that the European convention on human rights and our own human rights legislation will ensure that if the Bill is enacted in its current form, it will probably be outlawed at some point, because of the implicit ban on the promotion of homosexuality that it contains. My hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) said, rightly, that the issue has to be addressed and asked the Minister for Local Government and the Regions to state, specifically and clearly, how it will be dealt with. I asked my right hon. Friend for a similar assurance during her opening remarks, but I am sorry to say that I am not satisfied with her answer.
If the House of Lords rejects the Bill and we send it back and there is a ping-pong match between the two Houses, the Lords might, at some point, realise that the Commons is serious about the Bill, serious about human rights and serious about getting rid of section 28. If we do that now, that will be a clear and immediate response. I say with the


greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter that doing that will not give Lady Young massive publicity; instead, she will have been challenged immediately. However, if we delay, those who want to retain section 28 will have longer to campaign on the issue.
Coming back to a Bill in the spill-over period would be a good thing; coming back to a Bill in the next Session would be less good, but it would at least show a commitment. However, if we do not address the issue at all in this Parliament and return to it only in the next Parliament, we shall have negated our responsibility to get rid of section 28, which is an issue on which many of us were elected.
The way to deal with this issue is to say to the House of Lords, "Sorry, you are not correct on this. We are determined to get rid of the prejudice within our society, which has been encouraged by section 28."

Mr. Stephen Twigg: There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of Members want to see the repeal of section 28. If we believed that by sending it back to the House of Lords tonight through the Bill we could achieve its repeal, we would do so. The judgment upon which my right hon. Friend the Minister has made her case tonight is that we shall not be able to bring about the repeal of the section by taking that course. Nothing that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has said tonight has persuaded me that we can do so. Let us unite as people who want to repeal section 28 and get rid of it at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Corbyn: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. We are united in wanting to get rid of section 28. We are discussing how we should do that. With great respect to my hon. Friend and the Minister, I have not heard anything tonight that suggests that delay will make it easier to get rid of the section. I suggest that, if anything, delay will make that slightly more difficult.
We were elected in May 1997 with a large majority. Issues such as this should have been dealt with immediately. If that approach had been taken, the repeal of the section would have been achieved more quickly than is likely now.

Mr. McDonnell: We are having a tactical discussion and trying to find a way forward. Does my hon. Friend agree that a simple commitment from those on the Government Front Bench, announced tonight, that a one-clause or simple Bill would be brought forward within weeks—in other words, in the spill-over session—would send a message to the Lords that we are serious?

Mr. Corbyn: If the Minister is able to help us with that, my hon. Friend's suggestion might take us some way forward. There is no reason why the Government could not prepare a short one-clause Bill now, publish it immediately, and show that we are determined to get rid of the obnoxious section 28 as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend has not encouraged me to believe that that is likely to happen.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I understand the passion with which the hon. Member for Blackpool, South

(Mr. Marsden) expresses himself on this issue. In fairness, he should understand that others of a different persuasion feel equally passionately about it. This is the place where we try to resolve such difficulties. If the hon. Gentleman is looking for someone to blame, he should focus on the occupants of the Government Front Bench. As has been said repeatedly, the issue was not the subject of a Labour party manifesto commitment. The Government chose to tack it on to the Bill in the hope of sneaking it through Parliament.
I pay tribute to Baroness Young, who, by common consent, except among Labour Members perhaps, has fought a remarkably courageous campaign, with enormous fortitude and with enormous support from the people of Britain. It is widely recognised that last night, despite packing the other place with more cronies—another 30 since this issue was last debated there—the other place spoke for the people and parents of Britain.
It was not simply a Tory victory last night. Baroness Young would not have won had she not had the support of Labour peers, Cross-Bench peers, the bishops and the Muslim community. Those who are supporting the retention of section 28 constitute a broad coalition of the British people. Those who are in favour of its repeal are members of the Labour and Liberal parties. The issue is not about homophobia and it does not involve a tolerance of bullying. None of us on the Opposition Benches has any truck with bullying. That must be rooted out wherever it occurs in our schools.
The Government knew that they were losing ground on the issue. To placate some of the more reasonable members of the Cabinet, they produced the proposals for guidelines for sex education. They tried to do a deal with some of the bishops. They bought off some of them, but not all.
It is astonishing that the Government refused to accept an amendment which drew on the very words of the Home Secretary in the Government's own document "Supporting Families". If Labour Members have a complaint, it is about their own Government.
I can tell the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) that four bishops voted with my noble Friend last night and four voted against, but the former Archbishop of York perhaps gave the casting vote in support of those who were in favour of the retention of section 28.

Mr. Bradshaw: rose—

Mr. Howarth: As the hon. Gentleman would not give way to me, I will not give way to him.

Mr. Bradshaw: Name the bishops.

Mr. Howarth: The names are all in Hansard. The bishops who voted for retention were the Bishops of Bradford, Manchester, Rochester and Winchester. Those who voted against were the Bishops of Bristol, Oxford, Portsmouth and St. Albans. The hon. Gentleman can read that in Hansard, just as I did.
Another point made was that charities such as Childline, the NSPCC and Barnardos were in favour of the repeal of section 28. That is contradicted by an answer given by the


Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), on 19 June at column 5W. She was asked what discussions had taken place
with (a) Childline, (b) the NSPCC and (c) Barnardos about the repeal of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.
She replied:
The Government have had no discussions with Childline, the NSPCC or Barnardos about the repeal of section 28. I understand that the organisations do not hold official positions on the repeal.—[Official Report, 19 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 5W.]
I shall not detain the House further, save to repeat that it was a coalition in their lordships' House last night which secured the protection of children, which parents throughout the country want. May I say to the Prime Minister that the campaign for repeal is an eye-catching initiative, with which he is personally associated, and he will be associated with that endeavour right up to and including the next election?

Mr. Woodward: I shall speak briefly as a trustee of Childline, as a former deputy chairman of Childline, and as someone who has been responsible for child protection. Childline has counselled 1 million children in the past 12 years. Whatever the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) may wish to say about Childline or however he may wish to traduce it and the other charities involved in child protection, it is a gross distortion of what the charities have said and the evidence that they have produced.
The truth is that children are not protected by the current law. Those Opposition Members who have no interest in listening to facts and no interest in listening to children's charities are wilfully damaging, not protecting, children in Britain today. Nobody in Britain wants the promotion of homosexuality. People in Britain want tolerance, fairness and understanding.

Mr. Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Woodward: I will not give way, and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) knows well why I will not do so. Every time I have asked him to give way, he has petulantly refused to do so. I shall return the compliment. He cannot face criticism. His comments are based on ignorance, intolerance, prejudice and a failure to consult children's charities.
1.15 am
If Conservative Members had once done children's charities the courtesy of spending time with them, they would have learned—[Interruption.] Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen moan about this, but I have never seen a single Conservative Front-Bench spokesman at the offices of Childline. They have never consulted the children's charities. Why are they not interested? They had a two-minute discussion in shadow Cabinet in which they decided that it was so-called good family values—or short-term political opportunism—to ignore the evidence of every single children's charity and every single teacher who said that the section was a mistake. They do not care about the damage that they do. They do not care

about the children who, in the next 12 months, will be suicidal and who will take their own lives.
Conservative Members will not listen, but if they care one jot about children, if they care one jot about a Sarah Payne—[Interruption.] Listen carefully. [Interruption.] Those of us who are involved in child protection know that unless one listens to the problems that are raised by the children and their families they become a serious matter, sometimes ending in death.
I can tell Conservative Members that there will be children who will telephone Childline or the Samaritans and talk of suicide and despair, and if the House chooses, out of prejudice, intolerance and short-term political gain, to ignore those children, it will fail our country in a way which is singularly irresponsible.

Dr. Harris: I have three points in refutation of some of the points made by Conservative Members. First, it is not the view of any medical organisation, psychological or psychiatric authority that homosexuality can be promoted. That is like saying that femaleness can be promoted. It cannot. Unless hon. Members have discovered some new developmental biological insight, or developmental psychological insight—

Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Harris: I did not intervene on Conservative Members, so I shall not take interventions from them. Unless they can show such research, section 28 is founded on scientific nonsense.
Secondly, section 28 does not allow for young people to be told that homosexuality is acceptable as "a pretended family relationship". That means that young people should be told that homosexuality is unacceptable and that anyone who is homosexual and has any kind of family relationship is somehow unacceptable. That is what is unacceptable to those of us who believe that gay and lesbian people have a right to private family lives and to the freedoms and privileges that other British citizens rightly enjoy. That is why that part of section 28 is
anathema.
Thirdly, Conservative Members have attempted to say that they care deeply about the problems of bullying, including homophobic bullying, while supporting section 28. There is clear research on the effect of section 28 on the mental health and freedoms of young people who are teased for being gay or lesbian or because they are felt to be gay or lesbian.
Research by the College of Ripon and York St. John presented this month at a conference of the British Psychological Society shows that a large proportion of lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils who are bullied by their classmates try to commit suicide, and that 17 per cent.—nearly one in five—display symptoms associated with post-traumatic stress disorder in later life. The authors of the report clearly link that to section 28.
Dr. Rivers, one of the authors of the report, states:
I would suggest that there are fewer guidelines to censure bullying when it's over the issue of sexuality.
He believed that repealing section 28 would help. He said:
Section 28 is a major stumbling block to discussing sexual orientation and homophobic bullying.


The research evidence therefore suggests something that Conservative Members will not accept: section 28 helps homophobic bullying. They can ignore the scientific research, but they must recognise that they are doing so.
What about the decision that faces us tonight? I have a great deal of respect for the Minister for Local Government and the Regions and her commitment to repealing section 28. I also pay tribute to Labour Members who have spoken in favour of the Government's view. However, we must consider the current position. We are three years into the tenure of an all-powerful Labour Government, who have a huge majority and have defied the law repeatedly through illiberal measures on asylum seekers, the imposition of tuition fees—there was a great deal of ping-pong on that—the loss of the right to trial by jury, and the reduction in some disability benefits. They have fought and defeated the Lords on those issues, yet no progress has been made on repealing section 28.
Perhaps we are worse off than when we started because we have handed our opponents a victory, which will succour prejudice, give momentum to the view of those who oppose the human rights of lesbian and gay people, and kindle homophobia and the sort of hate crimes that we have witnessed in their severest form recently. Could the Government have taken action earlier to avoid our current position?
The Government must urge the repeal of section 28. They could have made it a manifesto commitment. A vote against the Government's position tonight will send a message to those in charge of manifestos that the House of Lords shows greater respect to Government manifesto commitments. If, like us, the Government had included their policy to repeal section 28 in their manifesto, we would probably not be in our current position.
The Government could have introduced the provision in their first Bill on local government. It would have been better to do it immediately and associate a popular Government with an important measure, which may not be populist according to the tabloid press. We would be further away from a general election and there would be less electoral leverage for the more intolerant parts of the media, and less of a chance for our opponents to whip up homophobia around election time.
The Government could have repealed section 28 in a House of Commons Bill, which would have allowed for the operation of the Parliament Act. I know that they were urged to do that. The Library report states clearly that if a House of Commons Bill had been introduced earlier in the Session, the Parliament Act—the cure for Lords obstinacy—could have been used.
It did not take a rocket scientist to realise that the House of Lords would oppose repealing section 28. It does not take much to realise that headlines in the newspapers—even The Guardian—which suggested that, if the Government lost, they would make the announcement that they made today, would improve the Lords' chances of defeating the measure. That happened on measures such as the reduction of the age of consent. The Government should give no clue to their future tactics because that aids our opponents.
Another option was proper reform of the House of Lords, ridding it of the hereditaries. Sixty-four hereditary peers voted against repealing section 28. That figure is far

greater than the majority that was achieved in the House of Lords. If the Government had not conceded on hereditary peers, or if they had proceeded more quickly to fuller reform, we would not be in our current position. If the Government had secured a proper turnout of Labour peers the first time, and fewer than the 18 rebellions, through pressure that the Whips are more than capable of exerting, the provision would not have been lost in the House of Lords. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the House. This important debate is of concern across the nation and the hon. Gentleman should be heard.

Dr. Harris: I pay tribute to Liberal Democrat peers who have twice voted to repeal the measure—the turnout was 100 per cent.—and to the Labour peers who spoke so eloquently.
There is another option. As other hon. Members have suggested, the Government could insist on getting their way and, although I respect the views of the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), that would not give Baroness Young further opportunities. Conceding defeat would give succour to our opponents. Baroness Young and her colleagues want the Government to concede defeat, but I could not abide giving them that victory tonight. If we insisted on the Lords reconsidering, that would send a signal from the Prime Minister that the matters referred to in the memo are of no consequence to Labour Members and Labour Ministers. I hope that an honourable Labour Government will not give way on human rights to the so-called family lobby; gay issues, as referred to in that memo, are a human rights matter.
We have lost again on a human rights issue. What signal does that send out from the Government? I am afraid that they have sent out other similar signals. With a few honourable exceptions, Labour Members voted against a proposal made from these Benches to ban discrimination in employment on the ground of sexual orientation, and for nearly three years after taking office, the Government continued to sack gay members of the armed forces even though they knew that they would have to stop doing so. They also voted against a proposal made from these Benches to allow pension sharing and voted to allow the extension of sentences for all hate crimes, not just racially motivated crimes.
The Government have apparently wavered on abolishing the offence of gross indecency and have in terms ruled out giving adoption rights to lesbians and gays. Also, we must ask, where is the age of consent Bill? It could have passed into law on 23 February had the Government business managers introduced it into the House of Lords earlier. If the Lords had accepted the Bill, it would have become law; under the Parliament Act, it would have become law had the Lords rejected it.

Mr. Bradshaw: That is an argument for supporting my suggestion to move forward with an overarching Bill to outlaw all discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation rather than for indulging the hon. Gentleman's pet scheme of playing ping-pong with the bigots in the House of Lords.

Dr. Harris: My hon. Friends and I would welcome an overarching Bill, but one has not been promised tonight.


I invite the Minister to give such a promise, but, given the Government's record on some of these issues, she is unlikely to do so. I do not doubt the hon. Gentleman's personal commitment, but he should examine the voting records. It would be useful if he and others sent Ministers the message that they want more progress to be made on these matters.
There are other options. The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I have invited the Minister to make specific suggestions. There could be a new Bill in the spillover period, though I fear that that might not work. At least she could offer such a Bill now. There could be a new Commons Bill in the next Session, which would offer the promise of using the Parliament Act. There could be an overarching equality Bill. The Government could show that the memo culture of worrying about gay issues does not apply to them. The Minister could at least guarantee that a pledge to repeal section 28 will appear in the next Labour manifesto. Can she give such a guarantee or say that that is her wish?
Unless we get a guarantee, all that tonight will represent is a victory for intolerance and prejudice, a failure of Government policy and a failure of Labour party policy. That will give aid to our enemies. Amendments such as that tabled by the Bishop of Blackburn, which were not the first preference of Members on these Benches, will have been accepted for nothing. No alternative has been offered by the Government and the atmosphere is one of suspicion.
I want the Minister to do what the opponents of this measure do not want her to do. They want her to continue with her line of offering nothing substantial except a vague commitment. We want her to offer a clear commitment.

Ms Armstrong: We have had a wide-ranging debate. Hon. Members on this side of the House and below the Gangway have made substantial points in support of the repeal of section 28. Those points have been made before, but are none the less very strong indeed. My hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) made strong speeches making it absolutely clear that, whatever the official legal position, young people who think that they are gay or lesbian have faced difficult consequences because of the way in which they have been treated at school.
Most Conservative Members have made it clear that they do not believe that homophobic bullying should go on in schools, and I am pleased that they have done so. However, they refuse to listen to any of the evidence that shows clearly that such bullying does occur and that section 28 is used—probably wrongly—to legitimise the reasons for not tackling the problem. Whatever their position in the House, those who want to see the end of such activity should take careful note of the clear evidence of many children's charities across the country, because the introduction of section 28 has had a negative effect. That may not have been the intention of some Conservative Members when they passed the legislation in 1988. However, that has none the less been the consequence.
It was interesting to listen to the meanderings of some Conservative Members. I remind them of what their party leader said in February 1999. He must wish that that was

long enough ago for people to have forgotten what he said. He told his party that it must be seen as "open, inclusive and compassionate" as opposed to its past "elitist" image. The Tory party is now tearing up its proposal for a common-sense revolution. It has also torn up its commitment to openness, inclusiveness and compassion.
Many of my hon. Friends and some Opposition Members urged me to send the Bill back to the Lords. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) made his position clear, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). They do not understand the procedures of the Palace of Westminster. If we send the Bill back, we risk not only not repealing section 28, but the whole Bill. If we remove the Baroness Young clause and send the Bill back to the Lords, who vote on it and once again insert it, the Standing Orders and guide to proceedings of the House of Lords make it absolutely clear that if the Lords insist on their disagreement, without offering alternatives, the Bill is lost.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said clearly that he respected the Bill and the issue of human rights embodied in the repeal of section 28. I share his respect for both those things. It is because we want the battle on human rights to constitute the dividing line between us and the Tories, between this House and the House of Lords, that I know there is simply no point in sending the Bill back in the way that he wishes. We could have no battle with the House of Lords: it could simply reaffirm its position and there would then be no opportunity for the House to consider or debate the Bill again. On that basis, I urge my hon. Friend to think again.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon gave us a litany of what the Government might now do, and all his suggestions are real possibilities. However, accepting those suggestions tonight without securing consensus across this House and with the House of Lords might not be the most effective way of ensuring that we get rid of section 28.
Those who know me well are aware that I am not in favour of gesture politics. [Interruption.] I said, "Those who know me well"; I do not think any Tories know me well. I am not in favour of gesture politics. I want actual repeal of section 28, and the extension of human rights in this country. I want to be part of making that a reality, and I believe that Liberal Democrats, Welsh nationalists and my hon. Friends share my determination. I want to work with them to find an effective way of guaranteeing the repeal of section 28.
We will repeal the section. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said that we could do it this way and that way; he said that we could do it by putting something into the manifesto. We need to consider all the possibilities properly and to come up with a method that works, rather than one that just throws the issue up in the air. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) attacked us for doing that.
We are determined to get rid of section 28, and determined to find the most effective way of doing so. The Government are committed to that; I believe that the House is committed to it; and I ask Members to support the Government.

Question put That this House does not insist on its amendment No. 377, to which the Lords have disagreed:—

The House divided: Ayes 381, Noes 36.

Division No. 292]
[1.38 am

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Ainger, Nick


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clelland, David

Allen, Graham
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Amess, David
Coaker, Vernon

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Coffey, Ms Ann

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Coleman, Iain

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Collins, Tim

Atherton, Ms Candy
Colman, Tony

Atkins, Charlotte
Connarty, Michael

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Cormack, Sir Patrick

Banks, Tony
Corston, Jean

Barnes, Harry
Cran, James

Bayley, Hugh
Crausby, David

Begg, Miss Anne
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Beggs, Roy
Cummings, John

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Bennett, Andrew F
Darvill, Keith

Bercow, John
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Beresford, Sir Paul
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Bermingham, Gerald
Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Berry, Roger



Betts, Clive
Dawson, Hilton

Blackman, Liz
Day, Stephen

Blears, Ms Hazel
Dean, Mrs Janet

Blizzard, Bob
Denham, John

Blunt, Crispin
Dobbin, Jim

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Borrow, David
Donohoe, Brian H

Boswell, Tim
Doran, Frank

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Dowd, Jim

Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Duncan Smith, Iain

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Bradshaw, Ben
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Brady, Graham
Efford, Clive

Brazier, Julian
Ellman, Mrs Louise

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Ennis, Jeff

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Evans, Nigel

Browning, Mrs Angela
Fabricant, Michael

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fallon, Michael

Buck, Ms Karen
Field, Rt Hon Frank

Burden, Richard
Fisher, Mark

Burgon, Colin
Fitzsimons. Mrs Lorna

Burns, Simon
Flight, Howard

Butler, Mrs Christine
Flint, Caroline

Butterfill, John
Flynn, Paul

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Cann, Jamie
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Caplin, Ivor
Fox, Dr Liam

Casale, Roger
Fraser, Christopher

Cash, William
Fyfe, Maria

Caton, Martin
Gale, Roger

Cawsey, Ian
Garnier, Edward

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
George, Bruce (Walsall s)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Gerrard, Neil


Gibb, Nick

Chaytor, David
Gibson, Dr Ian

Chisholm, Malcolm
Gill, Christopher

Chope, Christopher
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Clapham, Michael
Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Clappison, James
Godman, Dr Norman A

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Godsiff, Roger


Goggins, Paul

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gray, James




Green, Damian
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Greenway, John
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Grieve, Dominic
Lidington, David

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Linton, Martin

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Grogan, John
Lock, David

Gummer, Rt Hon John
Loughton, Tim

Hain, Peter
Love, Andrew

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Luff, Peter

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Hamilton,Rt Hon sir Archie
McAvoy, Thomas

Hammand,Philip
McCabe, Steve

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McCafferty, Ms Chris

Hawkins, Nick
Macdonald, Calum

Hayes, John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Heal, Mrs Sylvia
McGuire, Mrs Anne

Heald, Oliver
McIntosh, Miss Anne

Healey, John
McIsaac, Shona

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Mackinlay, Andrew

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Maclean, Rt Hon David

Hepburn, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick

Heppell, John
McNamara, Kevin

Hesford, Stephen
MacShane, Denis

Hill, Keith
Mactaggart, Fiona

Hodge, Ms Margaret
McWalter, Tony

Hoey, Kate
Madel, Sir David

Hope, Phil
Mallaber, Judy

Hopkins, Kelvin
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Horam, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Martlew, Eric

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Maxtor, John

Hoyle, Lindsay
May, Mrs Theresa

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Meale, Alan

Humble, Mrs Joan
Merron, Gillian

Hurst, Alan
Michael, Rt Hon Alun

Hutton, John
Miller, Andrew

Iddon, Dr Brian
Moffatt, Laura

Illsley, Eric
Moonie, Dr Lewis

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Moran, Ms Margaret

Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Morley, Elliot

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Jamieson, David
Moss, Malcolm

Jenkin, Bernard
Mountford, Kali

Jenkins, Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Naysmith, Dr Doug

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Nicholls, Patrick


Norris, Dan

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Hara, Eddie

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Olner, Bill

Jones, Martyr (Clwyd S)
Organ, Mrs Diana

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Osborne, Ms Sandra

Keeble, Ms Sally
Ottaway, Richard

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Palmer, Dr Nick

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Paterson, Owen

Key, Robert
Pearson, Ian

Kidney, David
Perham, Ms Linda

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pickthall, Colin

Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pike, Peter L

Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Plaskitt, James

Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Pollard, Kerry

Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Pond, Chris

Lansley, Andrew
Pope, Greg

Laxton, Bob
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Leigh, Edward
Pound, Stephen

Lepper, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Leslie, Christopher
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Letwin, Oliver
Prescott, Rt Hon John

Levitt, Tom
Primarolo, Dawn

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Prior, David

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Prosser, Gwyn





Purchase, Ken
Spring, Richard

Quinn, Lawrie
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Randall, John
Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Rapson, Syd
Steen, Anthony

Raynsford, Nick
Steinberg, Gerry

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Stevenson, George

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Robathan, Andrew
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Robertson, Laurence
Stinchcombe, Paul

Roche, Mrs Barbara
Stoate, Dr Howard

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff
Streeter, Gary

Rooney, Terry
Stringer, Graham

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Sutcliffe, Gerry

Rowlands, Ted
Swayne, Desmond

Roy, Frank
Syms, Robert

Ruane, Chris
Tapsell, Sir Peter

Ruddock, Joan
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Ruffley, David


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

St Aubyn, Nick
Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Sarwar, Mohammad
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Savidge, Malcolm
Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Sawford, Phil
Taylor, Sir Teddy

Sayeed, Jonathan
Temple-Morris, Peter

Sheerman, Barry
Tipping, Paddy

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Todd, Mark

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Townend, John

Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Tredinnick, David

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Trend, Michael

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Soley, Clive
Tyrie, Andrew

Southworth, Ms Helen
Viggers, Peter

Spellar, John
Vis, Dr Rudi

Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Walley, Ms Joan

Spicer, Sir Michael
Wareing, Robert N




Waterson, Nigel
Wilson, Brian

Watts, David
Winnick, David

Wells, Bowen
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wood, Mike

Whitney, Sir Raymond
Woodward, Shaun

Whittingdale, John
Woolas, Phil

Wicks, Malcolm
Worthington, Tony

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Yeo, Tim


Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Tellers for the Ayes:

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Mr. Tony McNulty and

Wilshire, David
Mr. Don Touhig.



NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Allan, Richard
Keetch, Paul

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Kirkwood, Archy

Ballard, Jackie
McAllion, John

Beith, Rt Hon A J
Moore, Michael

Brake, Tom
Oaten, Mark

Brand, Dr Peter
Öpik, Lembit

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Rendel, David

Burstow, Paul
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Stunell, Andrew


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Corbyn, Jeremy
Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Cotter, Brian
Tonge, Dr Jenny

Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Tyler, Paul

Fearn, Ronnie
Wallace, James

Foster, Don (Bath)
Webb, Steve

George, Andrew (St Ives)
Willis, Phil

Gidley, Sandra
Tellers for the Noes:

Gorrie, Donald
Mr. John McDonnell and

Harvey, Nick
Dr. Evan Harris.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments and reasons agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Learning and Skills Bill [Lords]

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 117

SEX EDUCATION

Lords amendment to Commons amendment No. 180: in line 4, at beginning insert—
("In exercising any function which may affect the provision of sex education in maintained schools, every local education authority must have regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under section 403(IA).
(7) Except to the extent provided in subsection (6), ").

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the Lords amendment to Commons amendment No. 182.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): I beg to move,
That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
I am pleased to say that we are now close to the end of our consideration of the Bill. I hope that the amendments will not detain the House for long tonight.
Hon. Members will recall that the amendments on sex education made in this House focused on protecting children from inappropriate materials, including those produced by health authorities. We have to consider two amendments to amendments agreed in this House. The first, to amendment No. 180, is a Government amendment that ensures that when local education authorities carry out any activity that may have a bearing on the provision of sex education, they must have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance on sex and relationship education.
The Government tabled that amendment in another place in response to amendments tabled by Baroness Young that would have provided that, if a local education authority gives training and advice to teachers or governors on the subject of sex education, it should have regard to the fact that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships and is the most reliable framework for raising children. The Government believe that the amendment was unacceptably narrow and that it would be wrong to focus on marriage as a single issue in that way.
We recognised, however, that it was important to consider the role of LEAs. They play a key part in supporting schools; for example, by providing information, training and advice. We thought it right for LEAs to have regard to the principles set out in our guidance when performing that role, and had already sent copies of our sex and relationship guidance to every LEA to encourage them to do so.
Both in principle and to ensure the successful passage of the Bill, we believed it right to table an amendment to make it clear that LEAs must have regard to that guidance when carrying out activities that may affect sex education. The amendment does not change the existing provision that, of course, the key responsibility for sex and

relationship education must remain with the head teacher and the governing body, and that the local authority has no duty in the policy or delivery of sex education.
The second Lords amendment, tabled by the Bishop of Blackburn, inserts an addition to amendment No. 182, passed in this House, to provide that the Secretary of State's guidance should secure that children learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children. The amendment would preserve the remainder of Commons amendment No. 182, at the heart of which is the protection of children from inappropriate teaching and materials. It is consistent with our guidance, and with our personal, social and health education framework.
In the other place, the Opposition tabled an amendment to stipulate that the guidance must be designed to secure that pupils are taught that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships and the most reliable framework for raising children. We believed that the amendment carried risks of stigmatisation for many children in schools.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wicks: Not at the moment.
The Government therefore supported the Bishop of Blackburn's amendment, which, as I have said, is consistent with the Government's guidance and the PSHE framework, and resisted the Opposition amendment. The amendment was carried in another place and I encourage the House to support it. Our sex and relationship education guidance recognises the significance of stable relationships as well as marriage. It is thus rooted in the reality of life for many of our children. That reality was echoed by the Bishop of Blackburn when he introduced his amendment in another place.
Today, there has been much comment during the debate on the Local Government Bill. The Minister for Local Government and the Regions has set out our position on that measure. Recent events do not change the provisions in the Learning and Skills Bill or the guidance that the Secretary of State has issued. Nor do they diminish the serious responsibility behind our actions—to support heads and governors in delivering effective sex and relationship education.
Our guidance is clear: schools should consider the needs of all pupils when developing a policy on sex and relationship education. Teaching on such matters needs to be sensitive so as not to stigmatise children because of their home circumstances. As we have emphasised repeatedly, schools need to be able to deal with homophobic bullying.
In agreeing to these amendments, the House should wish the Bill well on its way to Royal Assent.

2 am

Mrs. Theresa May: It is rather appropriate that we are discussing amendments on the Learning and Skills Bill immediately after the debate on the Local Government Bill. The measures have two aspects in common. They were both the subject of crushing defeats for the Government in another place. Valiant efforts were made by Baroness Young and Baroness Blatch on sex education


provision in the Learning and Skills Bill, and by Baroness Blatch on the measure in general. Both Bills, and the amendments that we are discussing tonight, relate to the debate on section 28.
The Learning and Skills Bill, of course, relates to the reorganisation of post-16 education and training. It may be a pity, therefore, that, in its last gasp in the House, it is subject not to a debate on the threat to school sixth forms, which the Bill introduces; not to a debate about the changing of sixth form funding, which the Bill introduces; not to a debate about the abolition of training and enterprise councils and the relationship of business men to the Learning and Skills Council; not to a debate about the sudden introduction of city academies brought into the Bill at the last minute by the Government; and not to a debate about the introduction of Connexions, a scheme which means that not every young person will have careers guidance in the future.
Instead, the amendments that we have before us tonight relate to sex education. The fact that these amendments are before us tonight is entirely the fault of the Government and their obsession with the repeal of section 28, contrary to the commonsense views of the mainstream majority of people in this country—because the clause to which these amendments refer was inserted in the Bill as an attempt by the Government to achieve a compromise in another place, which would have enabled them to repeal section 28. It was nothing to do with the Government's views on marriage, or on sex education generally.
The clause and the amendments have everything to do with section 28. 1 accept that, in her closing remarks in the debate in another place on 18 July, the Minister, Baroness Blackstone, said with reference to the speech that had been made by Baroness Blatch:
I was disappointed by her remarks. I thought she was being unduly cynical in her suggestion that the Government are bringing forward these amendments simply in order that Section 28 of the Local Government Act should be repealed. The Government are bringing forward these amendments because, unlike the previous government, they believe that it is right that pupils in our schools should get the best possible sex education"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2000; Vol. 615, c. 871.].
Well, I must tell the House that the reality of the Government's position was, unfortunately for that Minister, given away this morning on Radio 4 by the Minister for Local Government and the Regions—who spoke in the previous debate—when she made it clear that the references to sex education and guidance in the Learning and Skills Bill had been introduced only as a compromise, with the specific intention of making it easier to repeal section 28, by making section 28 redundant and making any attempt to retain it perverse.
In that, of course, the Government failed, as a majority of their lordships chose to reflect the views of parents and others on that subject. However, in this entire debate we have seen the hypocrisy of the Government, and we have seen how very out of touch they are with the British people.
The debate so far on this clause and amendments has focused not only on the practical implementation of guidelines on sex education, but in particular on the extent to which the importance of marriage should be reflected in the guidance given, and should be set out on the face of the Bill.
This is an issue on which we see clearly how much the Government rely on spin rather than substance. When the review—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have these interventions, especially from the Front Bench.

Mrs. May: When the review of the national curriculum took place, and it was initially revealed that the Government did not intend even to refer to marriage in parts of the curriculum such as personal, social and health education and sex education, there was a public outcry. I dare say the Daily Mail had something to say about that—and that might have had something to do with the fact that the Government then responded, given that we know the Prime Minister's views on responding to the concerns raised by the Daily Mail—and the Secretary of State made soothing noises to the effect that of course the Government were going to reflect the importance of marriage and family life in the curriculum.
Indeed, anyone reading the publication issued by the Home Secretary entitled "Supporting Families" would have been forgiven for believing that the Government were indeed strong on family values. It says:
This Government believes that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships…we do share the belief of the majority of people that marriage provides the most reliable framework for raising children.
It seems that the Government's views on the importance of marriage and of marriage as
the most reliable framework for raising children
were absolutely clear in that Home Office document.
As ever with this Government, the words that they produce in glossy brochures do not reflect the reality of their deeds. Those words do not appear in the amendments—indeed, attempts here and in another place to insert them were resisted by the Government. Their actions show that they are not interested in family values or in recognising marriage. Their words say one thing, their actions another.
Perhaps nobody told the Government that this could be a touchstone issue. The Prime Minister seems to recognise the importance of the family as a touchstone issue. The memorandum from "TB" dated 29 April 2000 and headed "Touchstone Issues" says:
They are roughly combining "on your side" issues with toughness and standing up for Britain. They range from: the family—where partly due to MCA—
the married couples allowance—
and gay issues, we are perceived as weak…all of these things add up to a sense that the Government—and this even applies to me—are somehow out of touch with gut British instincts.
The memorandum concludes:
On the family, we need two or three eye-catching initiatives that are entirely conventional in terms of their attitude to the family. Despite the rubbish about gay couples, the adoption issue worked well. We need more.
I should be personally associated with as much of this as possible.
I do not know whether the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister would see sex education as an eye-catching initiative on the family, but if they did, they palpably failed in that regard.
The Government were not prepared even to repeat their own words about the importance of marriage and stable family relationships as
the most reliable framework for raising children.
Those were the Government's words, but they have not been prepared to bring them before the House in the form of amendments to the Bill to ensure that it reflects the views of people in this country.
The Minister said that that phrase was rejected because it stigmatised children. I suggest to him that he speak to the Home Secretary, because they were the words of this Government. They were set out in the document entitled "Supporting Families". [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), says that I should examine the context of that statement. It also refers to
strong and mutually supportive families and relationships outside marriage.
It is entirely right that it should refer to such relationships, but the hon. Lady should learn the meaning of the words that the Government wrote. They said:
we do share the belief of the majority of people that marriage provides the most reliable framework for raising children.
They do not refer to the only framework, or to the only reliable framework for raising children, but to
the most reliable framework for raising children.
The Government are now rejecting those words by saying that they stigmatise children. I suggest that Education Ministers talk to the Home Secretary, who wrote the words and gave the impression that the Government were interested in family life and the importance of marriage. Once again the spin, the glossy brochures and the headlines have not been reflected in the Government's actions.
The amendments relate to the guidance on sex education that the Secretary of State must issue. We have a number of concerns about those proposals. The first concerns the suggestion that the Secretary of State will issue guidance to which governing bodies and head teachers must merely have regard.
Ministers have again pretended that the measures will replace section 28 and that they have greater force than they really do. They require governing bodies and head teachers not to follow the guidance, but merely to look at it when drawing up their school's sex education policy. It is incumbent on Ministers, who are trying to pretend that the Bill will ensure that marriage and family life are being taught properly in sex education lessons, to show how that will be the case if people are required only to "have regard" to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: For the avoidance of doubt, will my hon. Friend confirm that to have regard to the guidance is neither a direction nor a regulation?

Mrs. May: I am happy to confirm precisely that point. My hon. Friend has, perhaps, put it more succinctly than I have. Heads and governors are not required to take any particular action on the school's sex education curriculum. The Secretary of State may revise his guidance at any time, so we are not even confident that the guidance referred to in the Bill will remain in place.
I turn now to the amendment moved by the Bishop of Blackburn, which adds to the guidance provision the requirement that when children in maintained schools receive sex education,
they learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children…
I knew that the Government were control freaks, but I was not aware that they were going to mandate children to learn certain things. One can mandate teachers to teach certain things, but ensuring that children learn them is an entirely separate matter.
There are flaws in the guidance provision that has been inserted into the Bill. The main flaws from the Government's point of view are that it does not replace section 28 and it does not do the job for which it was intended. It introduces some guidance to schools on sex education and the context in which it should be taught. It is a great pity—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."] I am so glad that Labour Members share my disappointment at the views of their Front-Bench colleagues. It is a great pity that, having for so many months tried to pretend that they are in favour of marriage, family life and family values, the Government, when challenged, were not prepared to have the courage of their convictions and insert a clause to that effect in the Bill. They rejected the words of their own Ministers about the importance of marriage.
Perhaps we should read some more leaked Government memos to find an explanation. [Interruption.] That woke them up. Perhaps each one is wondering whether the memo that they leaked will be quoted now.

Mr. Fabricant: Where is TB?

Mrs. May: Where indeed?
In his memo, Philip Gould—a name well known to Labour Members—cited the problems that the Government were having and said:
The cost of all this has been high. We are outflanked on patriotism and crime; we have been assailed for spin and broken promises; we are not believed to have delivered; we are disliked on the Left for being Right-wing, on the Right for being politically correct.
Labour Members did not need somebody like Philip Gould to tell them that. They could have found it out on any doorstep, while canvassing on any street, by asking people's views on the Government; it is reflected in any conversation that one has.
Mr. Gould went on to say:
We have got our political strategy wrong…We quickly seem to have grown out of touch. Our Ministers simply do not seem as in touch as they were in Opposition…We need to be far simpler and more professional. We need to get back in touch. We need to reinvent the New Labour brand.
One way in which the Government could have done so was through the marriage provision in the sex education amendments. Refusing to accept the amendments tabled by Baroness Young shows that they are completely out of touch with the attitudes of most people in this country—with mainstream and commonsensical views.
The Government have tried to portray themselves as a Government of family values. They have palpably failed to do so. They have tried to pretend that they believe in marriage, yet, when put to the test, they have refused to do what was necessary to put that belief into action. This


Government are living by spin and spin alone. They have been shown to have no convictions, no principles, no values. Their action on this Bill shows that they do not believe in anything. They are living by spin, and by spin this Government will die.

Mr. Phil Willis: Like much of Second Reading, Report stage and Third Reading, very little of that 18-minute speech by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) was about the substance of the Bill. I am sure that the House noticed, even at 17 minutes past 2, that children were hardly, if ever, mentioned. The entire emphasis of what we are supposed to have been debating for the past couple of hours rests on young people. Fifteen minutes of the nine and a half hours on Report and Third Reading was spent on the substance of the Bill—I am sure that the Minister would concur—yet the hon. Lady had the audacity to say that matters have not been conducted properly.
Conservative Governments—of whom the hon. Lady was not a member, although certainly many of her hon. Friends on the Front Bench were—had 18 years in which to put guidance on sex education on to the statute book. Apart from the national curriculum, in which there was some good advice, nothing appeared. It is sheer hypocrisy when the first thing said by the spokesperson—and the other members—of a party that says that it wants to free schools and give power back to head teachers and governors, giving them freedom over the curriculum, is that there must be statutory requirements to ensure that every school delivers a curriculum on sex education exactly as they think it should be.
I do not wish to hold the House up for long. The amendments, the guidance in the Bill and that which the Secretary of State has produced will not make a jot of difference in the vast majority of our schools. Their governors, heads and staff are already giving students the most appropriate and effective sex education and guidance.
My sadness tonight arises from the fact that the Minister for Local Government and the Regions did not, as she said on the "Today" programme, "get the balance right, " even though the Government truly wanted to get rid of section 28 and replace it with guidance that commanded a consensus among most Members of both Houses of Parliament.
As they go home tonight happy to have defeated the Government, especially on section 28, the hon. Member for Maidenhead and her right hon. and hon. Friends should reflect on the following account. I remember sitting beside the hospital bed in Leeds of a young man who had attempted suicide because, as a homosexual, he had not been able to get the support in school that he should have been able to get. I worry that such fear will persist in our schools and among our teachers. Conservative Members may feel that they have done a good job tonight, but I can assure them that they have not. In most schools, what they have done will make no difference, but for a small minority of our children, it might make all the difference.
The Liberal Democrats will not oppose the amendments, because we believe that the Bishop of Blackburn has got it just about right. There is no balance to be struck between family life versus something else. We should honour all children, whatever their circumstances, and we should

make sure that we support every family that a young person lives in and is nurtured by. Remember the Conservative Government and the appalling debacle of the family lives of their Ministers—that shows the hypocrisy of what we have seen tonight.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: On the first anniversary of my taking the oath, I am glad to have just gone into the Lobby on the winning side for the first time.
I wish to comment on the amendment to clause 117 from the perspective of both children and parents. It is neither politically incorrect nor anachronistic to say that until children enter the world on their own, schools and learning institutions stand in loco parentis. There is a real connection between schools' and parents' responsibility to teach, and none of us should be ashamed that, as parents, we have that role. One of the things shared by all of us who have the privilege of being parents is a determination to give our children stakes in the ground—not least because in due course, our children will make their own decisions. They must not do so in the absence of principles that they can hold on to and standards that they have been taught by their parents and in schools and other learning institutions—I recognise that the Bill deals with post-16 education. We must give those who are charged with teaching children, including parents, the opportunity to ensure that children learn about the nature of marriage and its importance to family life.
Although the noble prelate the Bishop of Blackburn has negotiated a concession from the Government, I do not accept that it is a measure that the vast majority of parents in this country want for their children. They want their children to learn that marriage provides the most reliable framework in which to bring up children. As we attempt to pass good legislation, it is incumbent on us to ensure that we are not driven by a so-called politically correct agenda, but that we reflect in law a responsibility that parents want to have available to them. That is why it is critical that we ensure that children are taught about marriage, the value of marriage and its being the most reliable way in which children can be brought up—and that that is reflected in the Bill.
I regret that the Government have not gone far enough. It is a shame that they have decided that they must try to tilt the balance back towards a series of potential interest groups, without taking full cognisance of the power of what parents think and wish to see reflected in the Chamber as we consider appropriate legislation.
I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) had not mentioned children. If he had been listening to her, rather than seeking to ensure that his prepared comments fitted, he would have heard her mention children often. Children should be our central concern in this context. It was somewhat tendentious when he described a tragic attempted suicide as a result of someone's homosexuality. It should be remembered that children and young people who are heterosexual can also go through such traumas and tragedies. It is important that we do not try to draw false analogies from such cases for the sake of argument.
I find it difficult wholeheartedly to support the amendment, but, as far as it goes, it is much better than what went before. I wish that the amendment stated that


marriage was the most reliable way in which to raise children. However, the amendment is as good as we shall get tonight.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to be able to take up the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). During the short time that he has been a Member of this place he has added a great deal to our proceedings and has made a substantial contribution to the effectiveness of the Opposition when confronting the massed ranks of the Government—although some members of those ranks seem to have gone to bed now.
We are debating an important issue, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on setting it out comprehensively and effectively. She rightly paid tribute to Baroness Blatch, who has done sterling work in opposition, and was also a fine Minister.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) attacked the Conservative party. He said that we Conservatives were in government for 18 years and had done nothing about this issue. We did do something about it when there was a problem. The problem arose when left-wing Labour councils were beginning to produce inappropriate teaching material. That is how section 28 came into being. We now have the new guidelines on sex education, which run to about 33 pages, because they are the quid pro quo with which the Government have sought to placate worried parents.
By saying that they would repeal section 28, the Government tried to appeal to another interest group and appease the minority lobby. However, to reassure middle class, middle Britain, they decided to introduce the guidelines to show that they care about family life and marriage. They want to have it all ways. They want to appeal to every interest group without nailing their colours to the mast.
2.30 am
The astonishing thing about the guidelines is that the Government are reluctant to back the institution of marriage as the most reliable foundation for bringing up children. It is monstrous that the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), who is usually a courteous Minister, would not give way to me. He must answer the point that if the Government are not prepared to use the words of the Home Secretary in the document "Supporting Families", which was sent out to the nation as evidence of the Labour Government's concern for family life in Britain, they are not entitled to be taken seriously in their support for the institution of marriage and for inculcating in our children the idea that marriage forms the most reliable framework for raising children.
The Government have unquestionably betrayed the full force of the argument by not fully supporting the concept of marriage. In the guidance that has been issued, they bracket together marriage and stable family relationships. They yoke those two together because they do not want to offend or stigmatise those who are not married, for fear of losing their votes.
The House will be relieved to hear that I shall not rehearse the arguments that I advanced earlier in our discussions on the subject. I drew attention to the publication from the Office for National Statistics, which contained research findings showing that there was a clear increase in emotional disorder among young people from homes where the head of the household was a single parent or where the parents were cohabiting. The incidence of emotional disorder among those young people was up to three times higher than in households where the parents were married.
I do not believe that we as a nation should be morally neutral on the issue. We owe it to our children to give them a lead. It is a sad reflection on our times that we are even having the debate. In previous years, it was taken for granted by the nation that marriage formed the most reliable framework for raising children and a strong foundation for stable relationships. The debate illustrates that that is not so now. We can no longer take it for granted; indeed, the Government do not wish to take it for granted, so far has the family fallen into crisis in this country, as the Bishop of Southwark observed.
We cannot afford to be morally neutral. As adults, we owe it to our children not to run away from our responsibilities. We should set out in the clearest terms to them how we believe it is best for children to be brought up. That is the difference between the Opposition and the Government. We believe that emphasising marriage with a clarion call is the answer; they are afraid to do so because they fear that it will alienate some of their natural supporters.
Essentially, the argument centres on the two amendments, one proposed by my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Young, which mirrors the amendment that I introduced in this place and contains the precise words used by the Home Secretary, and the other containing the words of the Bishop of Blackburn, which were designed as a compromise. Anyone can see that they are less robust than the words in the amendment proposed by my noble Friend. My noble Friend, who was defeated on the matter, welcomed the Bishop of Blackburn's amendment, as I do—but it is not as strong as it could be.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: Given everything that we have been told tonight about the Churches' support for section 28, why does the hon. Gentleman think the Bishop of Blackburn introduced his amendment?

Mr. Howarth: I am coming to precisely that point. I was about to quote the Bishop of Blackburn, and the hon. Gentleman has kindly given me a trailer. In the House of Lords on 18 July, the bishop said:
this Bench remains full square—
I emphasise the words "full square"—
about the importance of marriage. It has consistently done so and nothing that I have said in this House on any occasion during the passage of this legislation or the Local Government Bill can call that into question.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 July 2000; Vol. 615, c. 857.]
I do not doubt that that is what the bishop believes, or that other bishops also believe that, but I cannot square that statement with the way in which the Bishop of Blackburn and eight other bishops voted down the amendment proposed by my noble Friend Baroness


Young, which spelled out the central importance of marriage much more clearly than did that tabled by the Bishop of Blackburn. Why on earth did nine bishops of the Church of England—who, as the Bishop of Blackburn said, remain full square behind the importance of marriage—vote against an amendment that spelled out clearly and unambiguously how important marriage is?

Mr. Chris Ruane: Tell us.

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman invites me to explain. Unfortunately, or fortunately, I do not sit on the Bishops Benches, but I have written to the Archbishop of Canterbury asking him to explain to Christians throughout Britain how on earth the Church of England can send out such a confusing message. By their votes, the bishops ensured that my noble Friend's amendment was defeated, so they have some accounting to do for the way in which they voted. After all, they are members of the other place. That is why I asked the Archbishop of Canterbury why they voted as they did.
The fact that the Bishops were not prepared to be as robust as their words would suggest that they intended to be, is a crisis for the Church of England, but I pay tribute to the Bishop of Winchester, who has been unambiguous on the matter throughout.
Whether we like it or not, family life in Britain is in crisis, and we in Parliament must do something about it. I fear that the Government have not been resolute; they have been infinitely too timid. They continually look over their shoulder, or stick their finger in their mouth and lift it up to the wind to find out which way the wind is blowing, or which focus group has sway at a particular time. They are more concerned about that than standing up for principles. As my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead says, the Government have no principles. They are motivated entirely by their consideration of how the focus groups tell them they should be behaving, instead of adopting a programme that is principled and clear.
The Bishop of Blackburn's amendment is an improvement on what we had before, but the mess that we are in is entirely of the Government's making. The amendment is the quid pro quo for the repeal of section 28. In so far as it goes some way to resolving the matter I welcome it, but I hope that when we return to government we shall be able to address the problem properly.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who has fought long and hard on the issue, on another outstanding contribution to the debate. We are discussing an issue that affects the many, not the few.
I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, like me, noticed that, in the previous debate, a score of Labour Members leapt to their feet to make speeches on a minority issue. However, when it comes to a majority issue, such as marriage, which affects the majority of people in this country, not one Labour Back Bencher wants to make a contribution to the debate. The entire debate is being led by those of us on the Conservative Benches. That tells us all we need to know about the Government and the Labour party. The Government's agenda is driven by the few, not the many. We witnessed another example of that tonight.
Labour Members have bandied about the accusation of bigotry against anyone who dares to disagree with their point of view. That is an outrageous abuse of the courtesies of Parliament, let alone the truth and the facts. Let us remind ourselves of genuine bigotry. Bigotry is historically applied to major events such as the crusades, with Christians versus Muslims, the 30 years war between Protestants and Catholics, and racial and ethnic bigotry. We witnessed such bigotry in the last century in German attacks on the Jewish race. Those were serious cases of bigotry, which led to millions of people losing their lives.
What we heard about earlier constituted an abuse and a devaluation of the word bigotry. We were considering prejudice at worst. In the case of this evening's debate, we were considering mere differences of opinion. I have not met an hon. Member whom I regard as bigoted about gender politics.

Dr. Evan Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there were homosexual victims of the Nazis, and that they were victims for no other reason than their sexuality?

Mr. St. Aubyn: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but those victims were a tiny number in proportion to those who were affected by racial bigotry. We should keep the matter in a proper perspective.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: How many homosexuals would have to have died in the death camps for them to be significant?

Mr. St. Aubyn: The hon. Gentleman—whom I know well; I have known him for many years—is deliberately and mischievously misinterpreting my point. As I said earlier, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made a valid point. However, the thrust of my argument was that millions died as a result of ethnic and religious bigotry and that we should therefore keep matters in perspective. We are in danger of losing the thread of the amendment.

Mr. John Austin: How little bigotry is acceptable?

Mr. St. Aubyn: We have to use such terms carefully. Tonight's discussions have been about differences of opinion. When Labour Members dress those up as bigotry, they overplay their case and undermine any credibility that their argument might have had in the first place.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. St. Aubyn: I should like to make some progress— [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman dealt more directly with the amendment that we are considering.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are right to call the House to order. We are considering sex education guidance. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was incorrect to say that the previous Government ignored the issue. They not only spelt out in statutory terms the way in which local authorities should deal with homosexuality, but set out clear guidelines to schools in circular 5/94.
2.45 am
Many Conservative Members are reluctant to go beyond giving mere guidance to schools because we recognise that governors, teachers and parents show more common sense than politically motivated representatives of LEAs in dealing with those issues and many others that schools have to consider. I have reservations about issuing guidance that emanates from a Secretary of State and tells individual schools how to deal with a specific subject. Far too much direction comes out of the Department for Education and Employment: the more top-down direction of schools there is, the more demoralised teachers become. Since the Government came to power, we find that half the teachers in the profession are thinking of leaving in the next 10 years. That would critically undermine not only sex education in our schools, but all education and the development of standards, which was one of the previous Government's great triumphs.
Tonight's debates have clearly shown that a metropolitan attitude prevails on the Labour Benches and pervades ministerial offices. That attitude has no place in many schools, which do not want the Department to be able to produce guidance that would undermine their perspective on the relevant issues. We had no compunction about favouring the proposal that identified marriage as the most reliable framework for raising children. Do Labour Members challenge that statement? If so, they challenge the views of Labour Ministers. However, if we agree, should not we enshrine that principle in legislation?
Hon. Members spoke earlier about the effect of section 28 on homophobic bullying. I am grateful for the Government's draft guidance, which was out for consultation until mid-April and suggested how their proposed new guidance would look. Paragraph A.10 clearly states:
Section 28 does not apply to schools and should not affect the delivery of sex and relationship education in schools. It does not affect the activities of school governors or of teachers. It does not prevent the objective discussion of homosexuality in the classroom, and schools can provide counselling, guidance, advice and support to pupils.
None of that is prevented by section 28. The premise of the earlier debate on the subject was false and the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough described a false position. No doubt the tragic case to which he referred had many sad causes, but clearly section 28 was not one of them. According to the Government's own guidelines, that legislation cannot affect the delivery of such advice and education in an individual school.
I have been a member of the Education and Employment Select Committee for the past three years and I cannot remember a single witness describing section 28—or, indeed, the previous Government's guidance, which is to be updated—as an obstacle to a head teacher or any teacher preventing homophobic or other bullying

in a school. Therefore, I was not surprised to learn in evidence given to the Committee only a couple of months ago by Her Majesty's chief inspector of schools that no head teacher has ever raised the issue with him either.
The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon mentioned scientific evidence in the earlier debate. I have studied the evidence to which he referred, but not in as much detail. Like much scientific evidence, it is no doubt professionally produced. However, it is not convincing. Anyone who can produce a good argument can usually find some scientific evidence to back it, but there may also be scientifically gathered evidence to refute it. Surely the experience of head teachers as expressed to the Office for Standards in Education, to hon. Members and to those who have served on the Education and Employment Select Committee is far more weighty evidence than a scientific study that was driven from the start by a desire to prove a particular point of view for whatever reasons—no doubt they were noble ones.

Dr. Harris: rose—

Mr. St. Aubyn: The hon. Gentleman wants to intervene to talk about that evidence, and I encourage him to do so.

Dr. Harris: Even the chief inspector admitted that his approach was hardly scientific, because during his inspections he did not ask any head teachers whether they reported this problem, whereas the research to which I referred asked people what their experience had been. The chief inspector produced no evidence to back up his view.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to emphasise my point. If one asks questions in a certain way, a certain response may be expected. That invalidates the opinion poll exercise even more than I had realised. If, with no hidden agenda, one talks to teachers and they do not raise the issue as a problem, in all seriousness it is probably not a genuine problem. That is where the argument against the Conservative position on this issue falls down. What we have heard this evening is moral bullying: Labour Members claim to take the moral high ground and then bully Opposition Members into accepting the measure by sheer force of numbers, even though they represent a small minority view within the population as a whole.
I have some problem with the argument that section 28 could not be effective because it is not possible to promote homosexuality. Again, the Government's guidelines, the consultation period on which has just finished, recognise that it is possible in sex education to promote some attitudes and some forms of behaviour rather than others. I welcome the idea that we should promote responsible behaviour by teenagers with a view to discouraging unwanted pregnancy. This country has a serious problem of far too many teenage pregnancies. If, as a result of this new guidance, we discourage teenagers from taking risks and following patterns of behaviour that result in unwanted pregnancies, we will have performed a service for them and improved their chances of having a successful life and establishing a stable family environment in which they can, in due course, bring up children and enable them to have a good education.
I should be grateful for the Minister's comments on the issue of human rights. I presume that because the guidance to schools has no statutory force, it is merely guidance and there would be no comeback if schools went outside the proposed framework, because no human rights issues are involved. However, our discussions have raised some of those issues.
We must consider the human rights not only of some of the groups whose position has been championed by Labour Members, but of parents, teachers and children. Children have the right to be given objective and fair instruction, and not to be exposed to a point of view and a relentless argument with which the vast majority of families do not agree.
This issue comes down to a matter of trust. From what we have seen, the Government have lost the trust of the people of this country on this important issue. In her winding-up speech on the previous Bill, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions said that she wanted the Government to get away from gesture politics. We all know that everything about the handling of this issue has been to do with that. It was entirely unnecessary to broach the issue of section 28, as is made clear in the Government's own guidelines. The fact that they did so showed that they were trying to appeal—with a gesture—to a specific part of what they saw as their core vote. As so often, not knowing what they believe in, they ended up showing that they believe in nothing at all.
We need to reconsider our whole approach to how we give guidance to schools. We need a more diverse schools system. Tonight we could be having a debate about how we could develop free schools; we could be having a debate about how the very minor concept of city academies, which the Government have floated in the Bill, could be expanded into a much more dynamic and diverse schools sector. Instead, we have been dealing with what is a very narrow amendment.
Let me explain something to the Minister for School Standards, who is clearly somewhat confused. It had not occurred to him that city academies were the thin end of the wedge of the full Conservative policy of free schools. Had we approved a much more fully fledged city-academies approach, the need for the amendment would have fallen by the wayside. Let us suppose that we developed genuinely free schools, genuinely rooted in their home communities—schools whose values and approaches were driven from the bottom up, rather than from the top down. It was, of course, the top-down approach of extreme Labour local education authorities that demanded the response of section 28 in the first place, 12 years ago. If we were to develop the bottom-up, grassroots approach to education—always under the overarching discipline of a national curriculum and a system of inspection by Ofsted—we could trust the common sense of the British people to deliver the right sort of education about sexual development for our children. We would not need guidelines.
When we achieve that, under the next Conservative Government, we can look forward to less regulation, less direction, and less interference in the daily lives and the very good job that nearly all teachers do in our schools today.

Mr. John Hayes: I have no desire to detain the House unnecessarily, but I consider three points worthy of amplification.
As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) presented his arguments in primary colours. He gave us an unusual but stimulating view of Germany in the 1930s, and, warming to his theme, brought to the debate his usual eloquence and style, if not alacrity.
My first point is that this should not be a partisan matter. We have all brought certain prior assumptions—indeed, certain prejudices—to the debate: all of us, by the time we become Members of Parliament, have such prejudices. It is nonsensical, in a frail and faulty world, to pretend that people on this side of the Chamber are more prone to such prejudices than those on the other side. I think that those Labour Members who are examining their consciences will acknowledge that.
There is a second reason for us not to be unnecessarily partisan. Surely we can all reach an agreement about the value of marriage, which is well proven as the best means of bringing up children. Statistics and studies have been quoted. I refer Members to the work of Patricia Morgan at the Centre for Policy Studies, but many other studies show that children brought up in a marriage have the best life chances. It affects their education, their social development, and a number of other factors. Surely we can reach a common view about the desirability of promoting marriage in our schools.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Notwithstanding the overwhelming evidence produced by report after report that marriage tends to be the most reliable framework for the raising of children—although that is not always the case—the Government refuse to accept that evidence wholeheartedly. They are doing so only very grudgingly.

3 am

Mr. Hayes: I take a slightly more generous view than my hon. Friend does of these things. I think that there are many decent and honourable Labour Members who would agree with our assumptions about marriage and with our conclusions that marriage is the best way of bringing up children. Although I certainly acknowledge that, sadly, that agreement does not seem to have been embodied in some of the Government's actions or embodied sufficiently in their approach to the Bill, I do not think that one could argue that the Minister, for example, does not take these matters seriously. He always takes seriously matters affecting our children and our schools.
There should be some consensus in the Chamber, not only about what we bring to this debate but about our conclusions on the value of marriage and its place in our society. I do not accept the received wisdom that Governments do not make a difference to the way in which society regards marriage. I think that Governments can affect that perception through the tax and benefit system and through a range of legislation. I certainly think that Governments can affect the way in which we bring up our children. Values and attitudes are as important as anything else that schools deliver to children. Values and attitudes are very much about moral assumptions, social assumptions, assumptions about relationships and, yes, assumptions and judgments about sexual activity.
I do not for one minute buy the moral relativism that is part of the agenda of some people on the left. As I said, I suspect that some Labour Members do not buy it either.
The second point that I wanted to make is about our concern for young people.

Mr. Willis: There is something in what the hon. Gentleman is saying. However, almost every objective study on social disadvantage and social exclusion among young people has concluded that such young people, particularly those who are involved in crime, feel bad about themselves—they have an appalling self-image. Given that the majority of young people in our inner-city schools come from homes in which there is not a traditional marriage relationship, what message does the hon. Gentleman think that he and his colleagues are sending to those young people? Are they not telling them, "The relationships and homes that you are living in are very much less valued"? How will that help to give those young people the confidence that they need to go out into the world?

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the lack of self-worth that he has described is reinforced—indeed, it may be caused—by the lack of stability, certainty and order in those children's lives. The point about stable family relationships and marriage is that they provide order in children's lives and thereby increase their sense of belonging, stability and self-worth.

Dr. Julian Lewis: The point that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) was urging on my hon. Friend amounts to nothing more than this: if someone comes from an unsatisfactory background, the last thing one should do is tell that person that that background is unsatisfactory because it will damage his or her feelings of self-worth. Surely it is only honest to show people what advantage they can have if, in future, for themselves, they improve on the background from which they suffered in their youth.

Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend's point is valid in the sense that we do have to provide for young people role models and images of what they may aspire to. The message that we should want to transmit to our young people—through education, but in other ways as well—is that they can aspire to a life that is stable and certain and based on principles such as loyalty and duty. Loyalty and duty may be unfashionable concepts. When one talks about loyalty and duty, some people think that one is being archaic. However, they are important—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am beginning to think that the hon. Gentleman is straying far too far from the amendment, which is about sex education. May I suggest to him that he returns to the point of the amendment?

Mr. Hayes: I am happy to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. 1 was putting sex education in the context of marriage—stressing the importance of marriage—as the amendment

is specifically about that subject, and emphasising why marriage was an important role model for young people, but I will move on.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting and putting on the record that concepts of duty and loyalty are possible only within marriage and not within a loving relationship between people who are not married?

Mr. Hayes: Of course I would not make that point. Of course, those concepts are not only possible, but often occur in other relationships. They occur in relationships that are outside the family. They occur in professional relationships. They occur in all sorts of relationships, but as you have made clear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are dealing specifically with the subject before us, and the subject before us is marriage in relation to children and sex education.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Is it not the case that marriage is the ultimate test of loyalty and commitment? That is what distinguishes marriage from any other relationship. It is the Government's unwillingness to accept that there is a difference between co-habitation and stable relationships, as they would put it, and marriage that is at the heart of our complaint about the way in which the Government are handling the issue. Marriage is by definition a statement of loyalty. It is a statement of commitment, which co-habitation is not.

Mr. Hayes: I certainly believe that. In fact, I get married as often as I possibly can for exactly that reason, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Marriage is that test of commitment, that test of loyalty and duty. That is why it is important.
I must move on before interventions oblige me, or at least encourage me, to stray from the subject at hand. The third point that I want to make is about section 28. It seems to be undeniable that the cocktail that we have before us in the form of an amendment was mixed in order to pacify and placate interests in the House of Lords that were unsympathetic to the abolition of section 28. There is no question about that. That has been made clear during tonight's proceedings.
For that reason, I ask the Minister: would we have the amendment before us had it not been framed in that context? Would the amendment have been tabled on Third Reading in the Lords if we had not had the prevailing tide, if you like, of the possible abolition of section 28? In that sense, I ask the Minister to think again even at this late stage about whether he can put together something more convincing, not just for the House of Commons but for people beyond the House?
My final and concluding point is that guidance is not sufficient. It seems to be important, because of what I said earlier—[Interruption.] I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford, a former member of the Liberal party, who takes a rather different view. I made my decision about liberalism at an early age; he made his rather later.
I take the view that it is important for guidance to be issued. As I said, I do not take a morally relative view about the matter. I do not take the view that in a frail and faulty world one can always trust all people's discretion.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Does my hon. Friend not share my reservations that perhaps not this but a future Secretary of State might develop guidelines with which neither he nor I would be happy, and that the more these guidelines are entrenched in law, the more damage they might do if they end up being the wrong guidelines from the wrong Secretary of State?

Mr. Hayes: That is almost an argument against any legislation because we entrust in Government and, in particular, in Secretaries of State much discretion to bring to the House, to debate and to persuade the House to enact guidance on a whole range of things not just in the education sector, but in all other aspects of life, which we honour and follow.
Therefore, I do not take the rationalist view that if we leave people unfettered and unrestricted, they will always make the right judgment. I just do not agree philosophically with that view. On the contrary, I tend to support the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who said clearly that the problem with guidance was that it might not be followed, and did not have the weight of regulation or direction. It might lead to a curate's egg of provision in schools across the country.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Is my hon. Friend saying that, given that we have only guidance which is not subject to the regulatory approvals process or the negative procedure in the House, perhaps the guidance should in all cases be scrutinised by the Select Committee on Education and Employment, to which he in his time made such a valuable contribution?

Mr. Hayes: I hardly deserve that praise, in view of the slightly barbed remarks that I made about my hon. Friend earlier, but, given his characteristic generosity, I expect nothing less from him. He is right to say that the Government would need to be accountable to the House for the guidance. We would need to monitor it carefully to ensure that it was efficacious. There is no question about that, and my hon. Friend yet again makes a valuable contribution to the debate.
I have made my concluding remarks—[Interruption.] I know that that will disappoint hon. Members across the House. I cannot finish without saying that I was disappointed that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) made an intemperate attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead. He brings a great deal of breadth and depth of knowledge about education, but, too often, he lets his own prejudices interfere with that, and we saw that tonight. In the cold light of day, he will regret saying that my hon. Friend did not care about children or young people. None of us would be sitting here, or in my case standing here, tonight, if we did not care very dearly about young people, children and schools.

Mr. Wicks: Of all the Parliaments in all the world, only the House of Commons could in all seriousness at 12 minutes past 3 o'clock in the morning discuss the

importance of marriage and family life. It proves that the English still maintain their dry sense of humour. It may well be that the next debate on ragwort, about which I have learned a lot in the past hour, is a more fitting subject. It may be that the ragwort is at its worst at this time in the morning, but we shall hear later.
Despite discussing them at this time of night when our families are asleep, family values are an extremely serious issue. I genuinely regret the way in which the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) introduced the subject. As I think we have seen from a number of speeches this evening, and from speeches in the other place, the matter deserves serious attention. We are talking about our children's well-being and their need for appropriate and sensitive sex education within the context of family and personal relationships. Those things are a crucial part of anyone's education. We are also concerned about the risks that our children face—ignorance about sex, stigmatisation, fear, disease and teenage pregnancy.
We have to grow up as a Parliament in discussing matters such as sex education. In Committee, we managed to have sensible and serious discussions. We did not agree with one another on everything and we occasionally divided, but the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) introduced subjects from the Conservative Benches in a serious way.
Many of us were struck by the contribution made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), when he said that as a parent—I hope that I paraphrase him accurately—his main concern was that nothing should get in the way of the provision of objective, thorough, sensible and professional sex education of children. He said that he wanted his children to receive factual, impartial and objective information about those matters, and for nothing to get in the way of its delivery. He spoke for many parents.
3.15 am
In all the controversy and furore over the issue—the debate has often not been about sex education but about matters that were discussed earlier this evening—the Government have sought a decent consensus. During the passage of the Bill, we listened on this and on other matters. We have amended the measure. We took seriously the Bishop of Blackburn's amendment. That is why the Bill states that children should
learn about the nature of marriage…and its importance for family life and for the bringing up of children.
We acknowledge the importance of marriage. However, the guidance refers to stable relationships because we also understand that, in the complex family world in which young Britons live, many children are not able to be brought up—for the whole or indeed any of their childhood—within a stable, married couple relationship. Many of us may regret that. However, a third of children are born outside marriage. The parents of a large proportion of our children will divorce. Many children in families where their parents are married suffer if their parents are at war with one another—that point was not brought out in the debate; nor is it often acknowledged as evidence. Many children live in one-parent families or in step-families.
We can be consistent in saying that we need to teach our children about marriage, and in having a sensible understanding of the circumstances in which many of our


children are brought up. Many of them are brought up outside marriage, but in perfectly stable relationships where parents are doing a wonderful job. Others have chaotic family circumstances and they suffer as a result. We need to bring some intelligence and sensitivity to bear on the matter.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Wicks: I give way to the hon. Gentleman. I apologise to him for not doing so at the beginning of the debate.

Mr. Howarth: I thank the Minister for his courtesy.
Why did the Home Secretary say that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships and that it is the most reliable framework for raising children? Does the Minister agree with the Home Secretary, or has the Home Secretary got it wrong? Does he not speak for the Government?

Mr. Wicks: The Home Secretary got it absolutely right. Before I was a Member of this place, I was director of the Family Policy Studies Centre and paid some attention to such matters. The Government's family policy document was also right to recognise their diversity, complexity and sensitivity—as I have done, and more important, as our schools and teachers need to do.
We were asked how the guidance will be applied. First and foremost, we acknowledge and emphasise that in schools such matters are for head teachers and governors. We should place confidence in them. Our governing bodies are remarkable examples of local democracy. Parents and teachers elect governors—many of us will have been members of governing bodies. Those people have the welfare of children at heart. It will be for teachers and governors to apply our guidance. That is important.
We also emphasise that parents must be consulted on the school's policy on sex and relationship education. Furthermore, from this autumn, Ofsted will have a statutory responsibility to inspect personal, social and health education. That is another safeguard.
I hope that in the next Session we will learn to discuss such issues in a slightly more sensitive and intelligent way. Although people get excited about these matters because of the values and prejudices that we all hold, we need to enable our children to have proper education about sex, family life and personal relationships. If they do not receive that education, the risks that face them are extremely serious.
I commend the amendment to the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment to Commons amendment No. 182 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

Post Office Closures

Mr. David Taylor: The 85, 000 people in my mixed urban-rural constituency value and depend on the 36 sub-post offices that serve them.
Despite the excellent report "Counter Revolution" presented to Parliament last month by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, there remain local misgivings about the future of our post offices. Ravenstone Women's Institute has assembled a petition whose 568 signatories believe that the vital network of rural and urban post offices could be decimated if they are cut off from benefits and pensions work.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons should not take any action that would jeopardise the survival of the current network but should address the underlying financial and economic pressures that are speeding the closure of post offices, local shops and bank branches.
And the petitioners remain etc.
It is my honour to present the petition to Parliament on behalf of residents of the village of Ravenstone and the surrounding area.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Ragwort

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Owen Paterson: I begin by declaring an interest. I receive a modest income from agricultural land and I own a small number of horses and ponies.
May I invite Members, after our rather earnest and intense deliberations of this evening, perhaps to smile and make the odd joke during this debate? I congratulate you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and Madam Speaker and her team, for choosing this debate today, because in parliamentary time it is still 25 July, which is St. James's day, and ragwort, or senecio jacobaea, used to be called St. James's wort and was in full flower on this day—25 July.
As colleagues return to their constituencies this week, they will see a tall weed up to 3 ft high, with clusters of angry yellow flowers, growing everywhere. It can be seen on roadsides, on the verges, along railway tracks, on waste land, in hedgerows and in pasture land. I am amazed to have found out this week just how few colleagues know what ragwort is, and this ignorance extends to the media. A farmer told me at the weekend that the BBC, reporting on the impact of bypasses early this week, showed a field full of ragwort and described it as "a wildflower meadow".
Ragwort is in fact a vile and highly poisonous weed, causing more damage to animals in this country than all other poisonous plants put together. It is a biennial, producing a rosette in the spring of the first year, which flowers in July-August of the second year. Seeds can lie dormant for 20 years and each plant can produce 150, 000 to 200, 000 seeds, which travel in the wind for miles. These seeds land with a 70 per cent. germination rate. Ragwort will grow on the poorest land, and has increased dramatically in recent years.
Animals will normally not eat ragwort while it is growing if there is any alternative food. However, once it is cut and dried, as either hay or haylage, it becomes extremely difficult to detect, but it also becomes palatable to all farm animals. Ragwort contains pyrrolizidine alkaloids, the best known being jacobine, jacodine and jaconine. They are cumulative in effect and cause progressive liver failure.
As may have been seen in the Bars of the Palace of Westminster tonight, the liver has an amazing capacity to absorb punishment, but once 70 to 75 per cent. of the liver is damaged, it can no longer carry out its essential functions, in particular detoxification. Despite its large functional reserve, liver damage cannot be repaired, and only 2 lb of ragwort is enough to destroy 75 per cent. of the liver of a large animal such as a horse.
Symptoms of liver damage are yawning, weight loss, poor condition, sunburn and diarrhoea. They may occur within days. Staggerwort was another name for ragwort, as, in the later stages, it affected the brain, causing unco-ordinated movement and an abnormal gait. In some cases, animals may develop a mania, attacking any other animals or humans that approach. Death soon follows. That process can be rapid or can be drawn out over many agonising months.
There is veterinary evidence that sheep, cattle, pigs and even tortoises can be poisoned by ragwort. However, because most livestock are slaughtered at a young age, the impact is not widely noticed. Ragwort is, however, taking a terrible toll of the country's horses. It is impossible to establish an exact figure as every death would require confirmation by an autopsy. However, there is hardly a person in the horse world who does not know someone who has lost a horse to ragwort poisoning.
Last year, the British Equestrian Trade Association—BETA—conducted a national equestrian survey revealing that 2.4 million people ride and that 500, 000 private households own more than 900, 000 horses or ponies. Roughly £1.5 billion is spent on horse purchases and equipment and a further £1.3 billion on looking after the horses. On top of that, professional stables look after a further 120, 000 horses, spending £200 million running their businesses. The British Horseracing Board has confirmed that racing alone employs 60, 000 people with assets of £2 billion, contributes £450 million annually to Government tax revenues and has exports worth £90 million a year. BETA calculates that total expenditure is about £2.5 billion a year.
Unless ragwort is brought under control, this huge business will be put at risk. As Dr. Derek Knottenbelt of the Philip Leverhulme large animal hospital at the university of the Liverpool has said:
It is unlikely that any meadow hay could now be regarded as totally free of ragwort in the UK. This means that damage can be occurring in the horse over the winter without any sign.
That point was brought home to me in a dramatic manner by my constituent, Richard Matson of Twemlows hall, Whitchurch, who has diversified from milk, cheese and pig production to a variety of horse-related activities. He grows 60 acres of grass for haylage, but this week will have to mow and burn nine acres because of ragwort that blew in as seed from his neighbour's land. The agents looking after that land deny responsibility. That will cost him £2, 800. A legal action would cost far more as would the loss of his reputation if he sold contaminated haylage.
I had a fax yesterday from Mr. Crockford of Abbott and Co., which is a large hay and straw merchant in Cirencester. He says:
The changing face of the countryside means that there are an increasing number of people who do not even recognise Ragwort as a noxious weed, or may even confuse it with other plants.
We have recently had a claim against our Company where, in spite of our best efforts, hay which was supplied did contain Ragwort. The customer fed this, and the resultant damage to their horses meant that our Insurance Company paid out £6, 500 in compensation. In this case you could also ask why the customer continued to feed the hay; presumably because they were unable to identify dry Ragwort in the bale. Obviously in these circumstances, our credibility as a National Forage Company is jeopardised through no fault of our own.
It is absolutely essential that this notifiable weed is identified and eliminated.
I also had a fax from Bob Phillips, the company secretary of the Association of British Riding Schools and chairman of the Shropshire British Horse Society. He confirms that the
biggest problem is for horse owners who have to buy their fodder in. They are at the mercy of harvesters who are at best unaware or at worse unscrupulous…I do feel that this dangerous plant should be controlled in a more managed way than at present.


The British Horse Society, the National Farmers Union, the Country Landowners Association and the British Horseracing Board have all given me valuable information. They are all deeply concerned about the disastrous increase in ragwort. They are supported by the National Equine Welfare Council, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Blue Cross, the Donkey Sanctuary and the International League for the Protection of Horses. Many of those organisations have led campaigns for the eradication of ragwort and are to be congratulated on their work.
The only sure way to remove ragwort is to pull it up and burn it. Cutting will reduce seed production, but if it is left on the ground, it will still present a serious risk to animals and may still set seed. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food recommends 2, 4-D as a herbicide, but warns that it may damage clovers and other plant species. In New Zealand, a weedkiller called Escort, which is made by DuPont, is extremely effective on ragwort, but allows grass to survive. It is not currently available in Europe.
In the late 1970s, large numbers of the ragwort flea beetle were introduced to the Meander valley in Tasmania and that experiment was highly successful. It was repeated last year in King county, Washington, USA. In Victoria, Australia, where lower milk yields and reduced beef production were estimated to cost annual losses of £4 million, ragwort was reduced by 60 to 70 per cent. by the combined actions of the cinnabar moth, the ragwort flea beetle and the ragwort seed fly.
Eighteen years ago, damage to livestock in Oregon was running at $2.5 million annually, and whole areas were ungrazeable. The Oregon department of agriculture introduced the same three insects, and estimates the annual savings to be $3 million. It takes eight to 10 years to build up a moth population large enough to control the plant. What research is the Ministry undertaking into more effective chemical and biological herbicides? Is the increase in ragwort related to the reduction in the cinnabar moth population? MAFF spends £50 million on food safety and animal research; how much is spent on ragwort? The cinnabar moth has a most distinctive black and red caterpillar. Why have its numbers dropped in recent years?
In the meantime, the Government must enforce the existing law more effectively. That means applying the Weeds Act 1959. Section 1, entitled "Power to require occupier to prevent spreading of injurious weeds", states:
Where the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food … is satisfied that there are injurious weeds to which this Act applies growing upon any land he may serve upon the occupier of the land a notice in writing requiring him, within the time specified in the notice, to take such action as may be necessary to prevent the weeds from spreading.
Ragwort, senecio jacobaea, is listed as an injurious weed.
I have written to the Minister several times over my three years in Parliament, and on 10 December 1998, he wrote back to me, stating that
long-standing Ministry policy has been to take action under the Act only where a serious threat to agriculture is confirmed.

However, that is not what the Act requires. He continued:
The Ministry confines any investigations to complaints from occupiers of agricultural land who consider that their land is threatened by such weeds spreading from other land nearby.
Where non-agricultural land, including gardens and land used solely for horses, is under threat from the spread of injurious weeds, the local authority may be able to take action under specific byelaws (where they exist), under section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or under part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
The Minister stressed that local authorities have the power to deal with nuisances, but he went on:
However, it is for individual local authorities to decide how to use their powers taking all factors into account. It should be emphasised that the Ministry does not have any powers to compel a local authority to pursue any particular course of action here.
Frankly, that is not good enough. MAFF is utterly feeble in refusing to use the considerable powers given it in the Weeds Act, and local authorities are among the worst offenders in allowing ragwort to grow on their land and on roadsides under their control. Many are inept at using powers granted to them under existing law. As I have shown, the contamination of hay and haylage now poses a massive threat to all livestock, and the Minister must broaden his interpretation of the law. Any ragwort poses a threat to livestock production throughout the country.
The Government are keen to encourage diversification of the rural economy and must recognise the growing importance of "horsiculture". The contrast of this situation with the pollution of land by chemicals could not be more marked. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 states that
contaminated land is any land to be in such condition by reason of substances in, on, or under the land…that significant harm is caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused.
That provision triggers the involvement of local authorities and the mighty Environment Agency.
Ragwort is a harmful pollutant and should be treated as such in law wherever it is found. MAFF's regional service centres, or what is left of them after yesterday's announcement, will continue to employ 350 officers who go out to farms. It would cost nothing to extend their remit to taking a much more aggressive stance on ragwort. It should be an integral part of their role in promoting environmental initiatives.
Education is vital. All too many people see only a pretty flower. MAFF is in constant correspondence with farmers and landowners, and material on ragwort should be included to heighten awareness at little cost. Bad publicity works. Last year, Chequers was excoriated in the equine press for having extensive ragwort. Yesterday, I diverted my journey here and drove by Chequers, and I am delighted to say that I could find no ragwort on the estate.
The law must be altered so that any landowner or public authority with land that contains the weed should be liable to a heavy fine, and that must be enforced by the police. Local authorities and agencies or companies controlling roads and railways need to be targeted.
Finally, the risk to human health should not be underestimated. Dr. Knottenbelt said:
There is mounting evidence to suggest that ragwort is poisonous also to humans. The poison is almost certainly absorbed through skin. It is unknown whether it is safe to eat meat from animals that have eaten the plant but the alkaloid appears to remain stable in blood and organs.
In 1995, MAFF researched the toxicity of honey from bees that had been put in ragwort-infested fields. That proved conclusively that the honey contained pyrrolizidine alkaloids. It is also thought that milk can contain toxins. In South Africa, a disease known locally as bread disease occurs among certain native tribes where seeds of senecio isatadeus are mixed with food grains by mistake.
Ten years ago, ragwort was extremely rare. Now it is visible everywhere, spreading everywhere, seriously damaging livestock and threatening human health. The Government must act before ragwort is totally out of control and it is too late. If MAFF cannot enforce the law and get it strengthened, it should hand over responsibility to a Ministry that can.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) on securing this debate, although I would have preferred it to be a little earlier in the evening. Nevertheless, he raises important issues and I certainly assure him that, under this Government, we are determined to root out injurious weeds wherever they may be found. One insect to do with the hon. Gentleman's questions on biological control is the crown boring moth, which has been experimented with. Having heard some of the earlier debates, I think that there are a few of them in this place.
Much work has been done on biological control in Canada, the United States of America, Tasmania and New Zealand. Several studies in the United Kingdom have looked mainly at a plant closely related to ragwort—groundsel—to which similar biological controls apply. The studies include those called
Botryis-cinerea kills groundsel Senecio vulgaris infected by rust;
Patchiness and spatial patterns in the insects community on ragwort Senecio jacobaea;
Population dynamics of Cinnabar moth—
which the hon. Gentleman rightly said was a predator of the weed—
and ragwort in grassland.
Although the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food chief scientist's group is not currently involved in any MAFF-funded research and development on the biological control of ragwort, the hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that the Institute of Arable Crops Research at Long Ashton in Bristol is participating in a European Union-funded, multinational project, "COST 816", which is exploring biological control of a range of weed species in Europe. Although ragwort is not currently included, groundsel is. Any information discovered on the control of groundsel applies to ragwort.
I shall try to deal with the point about the way in which the law works in respect of the control of ragwort. I shall concentrate on the details, because the matter is important.

I stress that, to people who have horses and donkeys, the issue is very serious. There is no doubt that horses and donkeys that eat the weed can die in a most agonising way. I do not want in any way to underestimate the importance of the matter, which is why the Weeds Act was introduced. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Mr. Cawsey) with me in the Chamber, along with other Members. I know that they take such series seriously on behalf of anyone who keeps horses or is involved in horse-related businesses.
It might help if I explained the background. The 1959 Act applies to Great Britain and empowers Agriculture Ministers to take action against occupiers of any land to prevent the spread of five species of weed. Those are spear thistle, creeping thistle, curled dock, broad-leaved dock and common ragwort. Common ragwort tends to give rise to the great majority of complaints that MAFF receives.
Section 1 of the Weeds Act empowers, but does not require—that is the point that I make to the hon. Gentleman—the Minister of Agriculture to serve notice on the occupier of any land on which injurious weeds are growing, requiring the occupier in the time specified in the notice to take such action as may be necessary to prevent the weeds from spreading. At this point, I should emphasise that it is not illegal to have the weeds growing on individual plots of land; the issue is control of the weeds and the risk of seeds spreading to adjacent land and causing commercial damage to agricultural activities.
Under section 2 of the 1959 Act, where notice has been served and the person concerned unreasonably fails to comply with the requirements of the notice, he or she shall be guilty of an offence and, on conviction, liable to a fine. Those provisions might have been imperfectly understood. It is not an offence to permit injurious weeds to grow on land one owns or rents, but it will be an offence if, without good reason, one fails to comply with a formal notice served by MAFF requiring one to deal with any injurious weeds within a specified number of days.
Section 3 of the Act contains default powers that enable the Minister to take action himself if that is required because action has not been taken by the landowner. In practice, default powers are used infrequently. Most landowners approached by MAFF officials following up a complaint quickly realise that it is better and more responsible to deal with the weeds themselves than to have MAFF exercise its statutory powers of entry, employ a contractor and send in a bill for the work done. It should be emphasised that the majority of complaints investigated are quickly resolved.
It might be helpful if I explained responsibilities in respect of weeds growing on roadside verges.

Mr. Paterson: Before the Minister moves on from the Act, does he agree that line 3 of section 1(1) uses the words "any land" and that there is nothing in the Act that gives MAFF the ability to interpret that as meaning strictly agricultural land, as he said in his letter to me?

Mr. Morley: It is a question of legal interpretation. The point at issue is that the powers under the Act are designed for use in respect of agriculture and they have been given to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The land in which MAFF is interested is land that would be defined as agricultural land under the


Agriculture Act 1947. Much of the land that is the subject of complaints about weeds does not fall within the definition set out in the 1947 Act, and that is part of the problem.
The responsibility for control of ragwort on highway verges rests with highway authorities. When complaints are made to MAFF, we draw them to the attention of those authorities so that action can be taken.
There is some doubt about the policy of enforcement of the 1959 Act in cases where land used to graze horses is threatened by ragwort growing nearby. That arises from the fact that each complaint about injurious weeds received by MAFF is dealt with on its own merits; however, MAFF has responsibility for farmland and farmed animals, not for animals kept for non-agricultural businesses or for recreation. Generally speaking, it has not been MAFF's practice to investigate complaints about weeds threatening land used for horses, ponies or donkeys, because priority is given to protecting livestock.
I appreciate nevertheless that, at the summit meeting for the farming industry chaired by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, it was made clear that equine-related activities were highly relevant to the Government's encouragement of diversification. MAFF now has lead responsibility for most issues relating to horses, so we need to give some thought to the way we operate the 1959 Act. Commercial equine activities are a business and one which we embrace as a legitimate form of agricultural diversification, so it is not unreasonable for us to treat them as an agricultural business. However, whether that extends to all paddocks in which people keep individually owned horses for leisure and recreation is an issue which we have to consider carefully, not least because of the huge resource implications that such an extension would have for MAFF.
There are certain issues that we need to think about, but we ensure that all complaints from farmers who have diversified into equine enterprises and to whom ragwort poses a threat are fully investigated. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate—I am sure that he will not disagree—responsibility for all matters of horse, pony and donkey welfare rests first with those who own them. As well as ensuring the normal shelter, feed and water, owners need to be aware of the danger of ragwort and other poisonous plants.
I pay tribute to the ragwort awareness and eradication campaigns initiated by bodies such as the British Horse Society and the Country Landowners Association. Some have been local in nature and some have been national campaigns. They have been backed by bodies such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The Ministry's officials offer assistance on such points as currently recommended control methods to be included in campaign literature. As well as awareness campaigns, the educational work carried out by specialist equine organisations is of practical help to horse and pony owners. I urge those owners to follow the advice to ensure that any bought-in hay is warranted as free of ragwort before it is purchased—a point made by the hon. Gentleman.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is producing a new code of practice for maintaining its roads, and is considering a recommendation

that it should adopt the same procedures for ragwort elimination as apply on motorway and trunk roads. The MAFF press release of 5 July announced that its advisory material on weeds, which was already available on request from regional service centres, has also been placed on the MAFF website. One full-colour leaflet deals with the identification of weed species. It is well produced and helpful to people who may not be able to recognise the range of poisonous weeds. The other leaflet offers general guidance on control measures. It will get some practical advice to a far wider audience than the Ministry normally has business contact with. It will be reviewed regularly to ensure that control recommendations are fully in accordance with current best practice.
There are serious issues in relation to ragwort control and a range of other poisonous weeds. We are trying through the Ministry to join in the various awareness campaigns that bodies such as the British Horse Society are involved in. We make a range of information available, and we are making that available to a wider audience. When problems with ragwort are brought to the Ministry's attention, we take action. However, it must be stressed that our priority is agricultural land, which is defined under the 1947 Act. That is where some confusion arises. Some people are not quite clear about where responsibility lies and why MAFF cannot respond immediately to all complaints.

Mr. Paterson: Give the changing role of the RSCs, does the Minister see a role for officers who are travelling from regional offices to farms to be more active when they see ragwort, by reporting back and getting something done about it?

Mr. Morley: That is a fairly reasonable point to make. There is nothing wrong when people from our various agencies, especially the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency, which will be merged into mainstream MAFF as part of the changes, look out for such infestation and draw it to the attention of landowners.
Generally speaking, when complaints are raised with MAFF and when we raise them with the landowner concerned, action is taken. It is in only a few cases that we may be forced to use the powers that we have under the Act. Although there are changes taking place within the regional service centres to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, there will continue to be a regional presence of MAFF in all parts of the country. There will still be points of contact with the Ministry so that issues of this sort can be taken up.
We recognise that the hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter, and we do not take it lightly. We are doing what we can in relation to our powers within the area of our responsibility. However, it must be understood that MAFF is not responsible, for example, for people's gardens or their allotments. Landowners have a responsibility to control weeds. Our priority is agricultural-based businesses.
We recognise that equine activities are evolving, and we are keen to promote and support them. We will give further consideration to how we can use our powers to protect the industry, especially where a commercial element is involved.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Four o'clock.